BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)

Consideration of  Bill , as amended,  opposed and deferred until Thursday 21  January at Three o'clock (Standing Order No. 20(2)) .

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] ( By Order)

Consideration of Bill , as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 21 January at Three o'clock (Standing Order No. 20(2)).

Leeds City Council Bill  (By Order)

Consideration of Bill , as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 21 January at Three o'clock (Standing Order No. 20(2)).

Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Consideration of Bill , as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 21 January at Three o'clock (Standing Order No. 20(2)).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Minister of State was asked-

Royal Mail

John Robertson: Whether he has had discussions with Royal Mail on job security for its employees.

Patrick McFadden: During the dispute before Christmas, we kept in touch with both sides, encouraging an agreement on the modernisation of Royal Mail. Those talks are continuing, and I believe that in the context of falling mail volumes and the greater use of new technology, both Royal Mail and representatives of the work force understand that there are likely to be fewer people working for Royal Mail in the future.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, although I am disappointed that he is perhaps not taking a more active part in the discussions. What does he plan to do about the apparently ever-growing pensions deficit? Do the Government not have something to do on that? Should they not be helping Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union and its members to ensure that they get a better settlement?

Patrick McFadden: We have certainly helped Royal Mail and its work force by putting considerable finance, on behalf of the taxpayer, into it over the past decade. Just three years ago, we lent the company £1.2 billion to finance its much-needed modernisation. The mediator in the talks taking place now is Roger Poole, with whom I regularly keep in touch. The important thing is that both the work force and management reach an agreement to carry forward the modernisation.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the pension deficit. That is an issue for Royal Mail. We put forward a proposal to deal with it, as part of the Postal Services Bill, but I am afraid that many people were opposed to that package, although we made it clear that it was a package, and not something from which items could be picked out one by one.

Peter Luff: Job security for Royal Mail's employees, and indeed the security of its competitors' employees, is threatened by the continuing regulatory uncertainty in the sector. Will the Government use the Digital Economy Bill to introduce the regulatory change aspects in the Postal Services Bill, because those particular issues are not related to the wider issues of the future ownership of Royal Mail?

Patrick McFadden: We do not plan to separate out the regulation part of the postal services package that we proposed, as is the case with the pension proposals, which I just mentioned. The priority for Royal Mail now is that the talks succeed in reaching an agreement on the much-needed modernisation, because mail volumes are falling around the world and new technology is not going to go away. That is definitely in the interests of Royal Mail, its work force and the general public.

John Thurso: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to postmen and women, certainly in my part of the world, who were pretty valiant in the cold weather, getting the mail through?
	The regulatory aspect of the postal service is critical, as the Hooper report made clear. At the moment, Postcomm is in limbo from having half departed but not arrived at its new destination. What are the Government doing to ensure that in the limbo created by abandoning the Bill the regulatory framework will be improved in the way needed?

Patrick McFadden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the valiant work that postmen and women do. They underpin the universal service at the heart of our postal system, and we are determined to preserve that for the future. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him that the regulatory system is in limbo. It is true that we had plans to change the regulatory system, but Postcomm is in place, it is the established regulator, it has a job to do, and it should continue to do it.

Jonathan Djanogly: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) have said, Royal Mail requires structural reform if it and its employees are to move forward. However, the unions and Labour Back Benchers have forced a weak Government to pull the Postal Services Bill, so what, other than a Conservative Government, will deliver any action for reform?

Patrick McFadden: We did not proceed with the Postal Services Bill because the market conditions did not allow us to get the best value for money for the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman spoke about his plans, but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has been clear about those: the Conservatives would privatise the Royal Mail. That is not our proposal and it was not our proposal in the past.

University Centres

Phyllis Starkey: What plans he has for new university centres; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: As set out in "Higher Ambitions", we are committed to the enhancement of locally accessible higher education through a new University Challenge initiative. Since 2003, the Higher Education Funding Council England has announced support for 17 new local HE centres. In October last year, the HEFCE announced that six new proposals would be taken forward, including one in Milton Keynes.

Phyllis Starkey: The criteria for University Challenge could have been custom written for the University Centre Milton Keynes. We are a city with a large population of young people, but a relatively low participation rate in higher education, and the local centre obviously encourages them to participate. It is based in the heart of our business district and has a proven record. I commend the University Centre Milton Keynes to the Minister and hope that he will ensure that it is at the top of the list for further funding.

David Lammy: I commend my hon. Friend's continued championing of widening participation in higher education in her constituency. Milton Keynes as a city has perhaps done more than any other in the country to widen participation, being the home of the Open university, as well as the new centre. It is right to say that a strong bid was made, and, having seen the site and the proposed plans for the centre, I certainly welcomed it. My hon. Friend will know that, beyond the next spending review, it is hoped that the bid will come to fruition.

Julie Kirkbride: The Government have long had an aspiration for 50 per cent. of young people to go into higher education. Given the right hon. Gentleman's savage cuts in the university sector, can he tell us in what year he expects to meet that 50 per cent. aspiration and what percentage of young people will be going to university next year?

David Lammy: I am pleased to say that we have more young people at university than ever before in our history, and we will have even more next year. However, if the £610 million of cuts to my Department's budget were enacted, which was the Conservative proposal 18 months ago, that would mean a reduction of many thousands.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to exercise a degree of caution as the number of universities proliferates? Universities are at the very heart of many of our communities, with the wealth and employment that they bring-Huddersfield university is the biggest employer in my constituency-but we must ensure that we maintain quality wherever we have a university campus.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right that we must keep an eye on quality. We must never be complacent about standards in higher education in this country. There is a reason why British universities are among the very best in the world, so while we seek to extend the reach of higher education more deeply into communities that have not experienced it, he is right to keep his eye on standards and quality.

Stephen Williams: The University Challenge programme was originally launched in rather different economic circumstances from those of today. Is it not the truth that we can now look forward to a period of contraction, limited opportunities for students and, what is more, higher tuition fees after the general election?

David Lammy: It is surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman mention tuition fees in his opening question, given the five positions on that that we have had from the Liberal Democrats over just the past year. I can confirm that there would be severe contraction if it ever came to pass that the Liberal Democrats were in power, because the money that we have seen as a result of our policy would be diminished, and so would the sector.

David Willetts: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the piece on universities by Lord Mandelson in today's edition of  The Guardian? I am sure that the Minister is familiar with that newspaper's comments and clarifications section, which we all enjoy. May I invite him to write something to that section correcting the record and setting out the figures showing how much further the unit of resource in universities is going to be cut as a result of the Government's proposals? As we look at ways of easing pressures on universities, will he consider our proposal? Does he agree that we should not expect researchers and academics carrying out blue-skies research to produce impact statements-invented records of impact-and that the best thing to do would be to delay the research excellence framework until we have had time to work out whether impact can really be measured?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman continues his walk on the road to Damascus with this amazing U-turn on policy. I enjoy  The Guardian every day, and I enjoy all that is said by the Secretary of State for my Department. I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman got his figures on the unit of resource wrong yesterday. I am surprised, given that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of science, technology and research, that he does not recognise the importance of the public being able to see the impact that that research-paid for by taxpayers' money-could have. I am also surprised that he is jumping on yet another bandwagon.

Pleural Plaques

David Anderson: What recent discussions he has had with the Ministry of Justice on his Department's potential financial responsibilities for people with pleural plaques.

Patrick McFadden: I have had no recent discussions with the Ministry of Justice on this subject, but I understand that this is a long-running issue and that hon. Members are keen to see it brought to a conclusion.

David Anderson: I thank the Minister for that response. He must also be aware of the huge support for this matter across the House, as demonstrated by the fact that a private Member's Bill on the subject was passed almost unanimously here and has gained support in the House of Lords. Also, an attempt by insurers in Scotland last week to prevent the Scottish law from being changed so that people could get compensation was decisively turned down. Surely some financial responsibility must be taken, at least for the people who worked for British Shipbuilders and other previously nationalised organisations. My right hon. Friend's Department and the MOJ also have a moral responsibility to get together and sort this out.

Patrick McFadden: As I said, I do understand that hon. Members are keen to reach a conclusion on this subject. I also understand that a meeting has been scheduled to take place shortly in which my hon. Friend and others will meet the Secretary of State for Justice and the Prime Minister. The Government are aware that we need to respond not only to this but to issues relating to other respiratory conditions.

Minimum Wage (Tipping)

Adrian Bailey: What estimate he has made of the number of people who are likely to be affected by regulations governing the use of tips to make up levels of pay to the national minimum wage rate.

Patrick McFadden: The Government estimate that just over 60,000 workers could benefit from the change to the minimum wage regulations. This will prevent tips from being counted towards the national minimum wage. Customers do not expect the tips that they leave to be used to make up the minimum wage, and the changes that we have introduced mean that tips can no longer be used in that way.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome the new regulations. For many young people, waiting in restaurants is their first engagement with the world of work, and it is very disillusioning for them to have the rewards for their hard work taken by unscrupulous employers. Will he ensure that, following the introduction of the regulations, the situation is monitored and that any unscrupulous employers are exposed as a result?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Alongside the change in the law that we have made, we need proper enforcement and proper transparency in regard to what happens to tips. The public have a right to know what happens to the money that they voluntarily leave to reward the service they receive. The Government have also toughened up the law on the enforcement of the minimum wage, and there are now better arrears systems for employees who are not paid the minimum wage and tougher penalties for the minority of employers who do not pay it. We have also brought together the helplines for different rights at work to form a single pay and work rights helpline, which will make it easier for people to report abuses. The number is 0800 9172368.

Edward Leigh: My daughter recently worked in a restaurant, which had an optional service charge of 12.5 per cent., but none of that went to the staff. Is that not scandalous?

Patrick McFadden: That is precisely why, alongside the change in the law to make sure that tips and gratuities cannot be used to make up the minimum wage, we want the industry to promote a code of transparency to ensure that the customer knows exactly what happens to the money they give. If I went into a restaurant and thought that the staff were not receiving anything of the tip, why would I leave one? I want to reward for the service we receive, and that is what the customer wants. That is why we have changed the law and want to see more transparency in addition to it.

NEETs

Philip Hollobone: What recent estimate he has made of the number of young people in (a) Kettering constituency, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England who are not in employment, education or training.

Kevin Brennan: In the third quarter of 2009, there were 1,082,000, or 18 per cent., of 16 to 24-year-olds who were not in education, employment or training. That estimate comes from the labour force survey. The latest information for Northamptonshire is from the 2008 annual population survey, which estimates that there were 12,000, or 14 per cent., of people in that age group who were NEETs. However, those figures are not directly comparable with the England figure; the sample sizes are too small to give a constituency estimate.

Philip Hollobone: In many ways, the severity of the recession has had its hardest impact on young people trying to enter the job market. I know from my own constituents the difficulties that many families across the Kettering parliamentary constituency are facing. What are the Government going to do to get our young people into work so that they can start their careers in gainful employment? If they cannot do that for young people, what training and education opportunities are the Government going to provide?

Kevin Brennan: We have, of course, introduced the September guarantee, which means that every 16 or 17-year-old is offered a suitable place in education and training. We have rebuilt apprenticeships and we have signalled our commitment to apprenticeships for young people with the £2,500 golden hello for employers to provide up to 5,000 new places for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government are doing a great deal to help young people who find themselves out of work, although I should say that the NEETs figures include many people who are not in that position, as only about 37 per cent. are actually seeking work or training.

David Evennett: When we debated this issue yesterday, the Government appeared totally complacent. With more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training and with the second highest level of youth unemployment in Europe, this Government have let down a generation of young people. Is the Minister not ashamed? As we face another looming crisis this year on university applications, will he take up our proposals, which have been fully costed and funded, for an additional 10,000 university places?

Kevin Brennan: We are neither ashamed nor complacent, and we will not take up that proposal for the reason I set out in yesterday's debate-because it is not properly funded. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the key issue is how quickly young people move out of unemployment and into work. Six month-plus 18-to-24 unemployment is currently 108,800; in 1997, it was 169,000; in 1993, it was 415,000; and in 1985, during the last Conservative Government, it was 600,000-six times as many people in that age group unemployed for six months or more. That is the difference between us and them.

Science Education (Universities)

Alistair Burt: What recent representations he has received on the future of science education in universities.

David Lammy: I met university vice-chancellors on Tuesday and I reaffirm the Department's commitment, made in "Higher Ambitions", to science and engineering.

Alistair Burt: On 3 November, the Minister denounced as a caricature that he did not recognise the question I put to him here on the disconnection between school and university science, which was leading to remedial courses for undergraduates who were inadequately prepared at school for university. Has he since had a chance to see the remarks of Dr. Richard Pike, the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, who has made this far from novel or original point yet again, concluding with the phrase:
	"Until we get to grips with this fiasco... this country risks sliding down the road to mediocrity"?
	If the Minister will not recognise my description of the problem, perhaps he will recognise Dr. Pike's.

David Lammy: What I recognise are the figures published today, which confirm that there has been a 12 per cent. rise in A-level entries for maths and further maths and a 3.8 per cent. rise for physics, as well as a 3 per cent. rise in undergraduates taking science subjects and a 7 per cent. rise in postgraduates doing so. I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes back to the very foundation of science: the evidence. He should look at the figures for what young people are doing and recognise that there have been massive advances for science subjects as a result of funding from this Government.

Brian Iddon: When vice-chancellors are under financial pressure, they find that the greatest savings in universities can be made by closing science and engineering departments. That is what has happened in the past, and that is what is beginning to happen this year. Will my right hon. Friend keep a very close eye on the way in which vice-chancellors make their savings?

David Lammy: I hope my hon. Friend recognises that we have sought to ensure that the money is in place, particularly to prioritise science, technology, engineering and maths. We set that out most recently in "Higher Ambitions". Our university science departments are key to our "New industry, new jobs" agenda for sectors such as the life sciences, biotechnology and advanced manufacturing, which will have to be centre stage to our economic recovery. I recognise that this is an important issue, therefore, notwithstanding the research and assessment exercise results, which might lead some vice-chancellors to decide to withdraw from certain areas and prioritise others.

Adam Afriyie: The largest research council, the Science and Technology Facilities Council, has already been forced to cut research grants by 10 per cent. and fellowships by 25 per cent. and to withdraw from 27 significant projects. The Government have allocated no money whatever to their ring-fenced science budget beyond this year, yet last night the science Minister confirmed-this has been confirmed again here this morning-that £600 million will be cut from the science budget over the next two years. Can the Minister explain how a specific sum-this £600 million-can be cut from a budget that has nothing in it?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong, which is unusual. It is not £600 million from the science budget; it is £600 million up to 2013 from the entirety of the just under £13 billion higher education budget from which we have asked savings to be found. We are committed to the science ring fence and the 10-year framework for science, and it is wrong to caricature the STFC, to which we gave £40 million just last year, in that way.

Unionlearn

Tony Lloyd: What estimate he has made of the number of people who have completed training courses under the unionlearn programme since 2006; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: Since 2006, trade unions, supported by unionlearn, have helped over 570,000 workers access a training course, including over 80,000 with poor basic literacy and numeracy skills. Detailed information on completions is not collated centrally, but Leeds university business school is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of learner outcomes, which will provide robust evidence of the percentage completing courses.

Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those 500,000-plus learners through unionlearn include many people who would not have accessed skills training without it, which is why it is so popular with employers-it is in the national interest and the interest of companies? Also, has he received representations from other parties about whether they are prepared to commit to unionlearn?

Kevin Brennan: I can confirm my hon. Friend's first point. Interestingly, in yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said he was very much in favour of unionlearn because it was so cost-effective. I do not know whether that is a pledge, but one thing is clear: this is a Labour Government policy that the Conservative party opposed, but which is now endorsed by its Front-Bench team as very good value for money.

Student Maintenance Support

Andrew Stunell: What plans he has for the future of student maintenance support; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The independent review of higher education funding and student finance will analyse the challenges facing, and opportunities for, higher education and their implications for student financing and support. It will make recommendations to Government on the future balance of financial contributions by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers, and the Government will not pre-empt the outcome of the review.

Andrew Stunell: May I direct the Minister to the issue of maintenance allowances, which is the subject of my question? Is he at all satisfied with the future direction, given that 28,000 students are not receiving their maintenance allowances, including several hundred in Stockport, who, even after Christmas, are stranded without the money they deserve?

David Lammy: That is why I set up the independent review led by Sir Deian Hopkin. I think that we all recognise that serious issues have arisen in relation to the Student Loans Company's performance this year. Its chair and chief executive have apologised, and I am pleased that it has now dealt with the backlog. Many thousands of applications continue to come in, as many students have been delaying seeking their finance. What is important is for next year's process to be far better than this year's, and that is the undertaking that the chair and chief executive have made.

David Chaytor: Forty-three per cent. of students in higher education are part-time students, and future growth will largely come from part-time and mature students. Is there not a powerful argument for raising the cap on full-time undergraduate fees in order to develop a unified system, giving part-time students the same access to financial support that full-time students enjoy?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend puts his point forcefully. I shall not be drawn on the outcome of the review, but I can say that he is right to underline the position of part-time students and to call for better equity. That is why we have asked Lord Browne to examine the position of part-time students, in particular.

Grocery Ombudsman

Andrew George: What plans he has to respond to the Competition Commission's recommendation for the creation of a grocery supply chain ombudsman.

Kevin Brennan: My Department published the Government's response to the Competition Competition's recommendation for the creation of a grocery supply chain ombudsman yesterday. The Government have accepted the need for independent enforcement of the grocery supply code of practice, and we will consult on the detail of the body and its powers.

Andrew George: As I chair the grocery market action group, perhaps I should declare an interest. I have been campaigning for this for the best part of 10 years. Therefore, I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement yesterday-I have to say, it was not before time. What timetable does he envisage for the implementation of this vital recommendation, bearing in mind that although the grocery supply code of practice will be unenforced, it will be implemented on 4 February?

Kevin Brennan: On the time taken, the Competition Commission made its formal request to the Government only last August. In the meantime, I have met the hon. Gentleman and his group, the British Retail Consortium, the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation, Consumer Focus, Divine Chocolate and the Office of Fair Trading, so a proper consultation has been taking place. The formal consultation will start shortly after the code comes into force on 4 February. How quickly we can implement the measures depends on the solution and whether or not it needs legislation, and that will ultimately depend on the design of the body.

Lindsay Hoyle: Of course we welcome movement on this from the Government, but we need real teeth and real power. The power of the supermarkets puts pressure on the farmers, and we want fair farm-gate prices and a purchasing policy for local communities. That would provide the teeth and the power we need. We need that commitment from the Minister.

Kevin Brennan: Of course the purpose of the enforcement body is to enforce the code, which has been broadly welcomed by everyone as having the teeth necessary. We just need to ensure that it is independently enforced, and we have accepted the case for that. Ultimately, we accepted it on the grounds that the Competition Commission made it clear that it believed that in the long term this was in the interests of shoppers and consumers, because it would provide the kind of certainty in the supply chain that will produce better prices and choices for them.

Mark Field: Does the Minister regard the appointment and powers of this ombudsman to be complementary to or in addition to the existing powers of the OFT and the Competition Commission, which, as he will know, have held almost continuous inquiries into the supermarket sector over the past decade or so?

Kevin Brennan: The powers of those bodies remain as they were previously in the event of there being matters that they need to investigate. The job of the independent ombudsman will principally be to enforce the code, but we are also consulting, as part of how we design the body, on exactly what the powers will be.

Agency Workers

Chris Mullin: What plans he has for legislation on the regulation of agency workers; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McFadden: The Government want to get the legislation to implement the agency workers directive on to the statute book by the end of this Parliament. We will shortly table the relevant regulations and publish the Government's response to the recent consultation.

Chris Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but it is a pity that this has been left until so late in the day. How confident is he that the matter will be dealt with before Dissolution?

Patrick McFadden: That is the aim. My hon. Friend says that it has been left until late in the day, but if he looks across Europe he will see that we are legislating ahead of many other countries. I do not accept that there has been an unacceptable delay, but it is our aim to get this provision on the statute book by the end of the Parliament. As I have said, we will be publishing the relevant regulations shortly.

John Penrose: In October, the Government announced that this regulation would not come into force until 2011 to avoid harming Britain's recovery after the recession. Here we are, however, rushing it through Parliament just weeks before a general election. A cynic might wonder whether this is anything to do with the Labour party's pressing need for election funds from its trade union paymasters, who demanded this measure as part of the infamous Warwick agreement. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure those cynics that nothing could be further from the Government's mind and that they would never put short-term, grubby party political interests ahead of doing the right thing for the country?

Patrick McFadden: Our aim in bringing forward these regulations is to abide by the agreement that we reached in Europe to ensure fairness for agency workers and flexibility for employers. That was the basis of the TUC-CBI agreement, and it stands in stark contrast to the Opposition's pledge to downgrade the employment rights that have been agreed in Europe. There will be a very clear choice on this matter when it comes to the election.

Adam Price: Does the Minister accept that this change has long been campaigned for? There have been two series of consultation and there is now no impediment to ensuring that agency and temporary workers get the justice for which they have been calling for so many years.

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been under discussion for some time. It took a long time to get agreement in Europe. We were able to reach agreement on the basis of an agreement in the UK between the TUC and the CBI. We then successfully negotiated for that to be reflected in the European directive. That was something we could do only because this country, under this Government, is properly engaged with our European allies. I dread to think how we would negotiate in Europe if the Opposition, who are isolated in Europe, were trying to negotiate with 27 other countries.

Libel Laws (Science Sector)

Evan Harris: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the effects on the science sector of libel laws.

Ian Lucas: Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have held no recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on the effects of libel laws on the science sector. The Justice Secretary leads on the issue of libel law. Professor Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser, and officials are in discussions with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice to ensure that science and engineering receive appropriate attention in their consideration of libel law.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that Professor Beddington has set out his concerns and will, I hope, be feeding them into the Government review. However, does the Minister accept that there is genuine concern among publishers of medical journals, for example, about the chilling effect of the threat of libel actions? Would he, or one of his colleagues-perhaps the Minister for Science and Innovation-be willing to meet a delegation of scientists so that they can effectively feed in scientists' concerns to the Ministry of Justice?

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The Department is aware of the concern in the scientific community relating to the chilling effect to which he refers. As I said in my response, the Ministry of Justice leads on this matter. I shall refer his remarks to it, and I undertake to ensure that its Ministers are aware of what he has had to say today. I shall keep in touch with him on this matter.

Rob Marris: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he as a Minister should have an early meeting with the Justice Ministers on this issue? It directly affects his Department because these wretched libel laws will restrict the publication of scientific research, which will have an effect on research and development and, in particular, on manufacturing in our economy, which is his responsibility.

Ian Lucas: I fully accept that science, innovation and manufacturing are at the heart of this Department's agenda. This is a very important issue: it is important that we have responsible, intelligent and creative scientific debate, and the review is taking place under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice because we want to ensure that we have the correct legal environment for that debate to happen.

Venture Capital

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet small business organisations to discuss Government funding for venture capital projects.

Rosie Winterton: The Minister for Trade, Investment and Small Business and the City Minister regularly meet the Small Business Finance Forum, which brings together the banks, small business representative organisations and the Government to discuss the economic situation and the availability of finance.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister turn her attention to the Capital for Enterprise Fund, which made its first investments in May last year? Will she confirm that her Department has put up £50 million in total, and that annual management and administration costs will come to £2.5 million? In other words, over 10 years, the fees to the City and advisers will swallow up half of the Government's total contribution. Has she secured a good deal, or has she been taken for a ride?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There were at least three questions there, but one short answer will suffice.

Rosie Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that there was no Capital for Enterprise Fund. Since 2000, this Government have committed £400 million to a range of venture capital funds, which has attracted £551 million of private sector investment. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want such measures to be taken? Does he not want the new measures that will arise from the 2009 pre-Budget report? If we followed the advice of the Opposition, none of these funds would be available to help small business in these difficult times.

Capital Expenditure

Andrew Selous: What estimate he has made of the level of capital expenditure by further education colleges in (a) south Bedfordshire and (b) England in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: In the financial year 2009-10, the Learning and Skills Council will invest £800 million in the development of 66 further education college capital projects across England. They will cost a total of £2.45 billion, and will receive just under £1.8 billion of Government investment in this and the next spending review. The Bedfordshire and Luton area has benefited from £52.8 million in LSC capital grant support since 2001, although in the last 12 months there has been no capital expenditure in South-West Bedfordshire.

Andrew Selous: I am glad that the Minister made the last point, that central Bedfordshire got nothing. Also, the college took on 250 extra students in September for whom it has no funding. I spoke to the principal this morning, and she told me she believes that she is expected to implement the January guarantee with no money. The local learning and skills council thinks that there is some money, but does not know how to access it. Can the Minister help?

Kevin Brennan: I shall certainly be happy to look into that. I know that the hon. Gentleman's local college, which has changed its name, has received £740,000 in support for the capital project development costs that it was not able to go ahead with as a result of the programme. However, I am certainly happy to look into the point that he makes about the January guarantee.

University Funding

Ann Winterton: What his policy is on the future level of funding of universities; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: The Government have presided over huge investment in higher education. Spending has risen by some 25 per cent. since 1997, which has significantly increased income and variable fees. Next year, my Department will allocate some £13 billion to higher education, taking into account spend on institutions and students.

Ann Winterton: Universities face total budget cuts of £2.5 billion, and the Business Secretary has said that he will slash funding next year by £535 million. How will those savage cuts affect the quality of teaching and research? In addition-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that one question will do. I am extraordinarily grateful, but we need to make progress.

David Lammy: I think that "savage cuts" were the 38 per cent. fall in the unit of resource between 1991 and 1997, which left universities in this country on their knees. What the Government proposed in the grant letter to universities just before Christmas was in fact a saving of 1 per cent.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister join me in welcoming today's launch of the Centre for Low Carbon Futures at the universities of York, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull? Will he look at the £49 million of Research Councils UK money that those universities have received in the past three years for work in this field, and then write to me to let me know what sort of support the research councils, the Technology Strategy Board and the European Commission could give the centre over the next five years or so?

David Lammy: I am very happy to confirm that I will do that. My colleague the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber will be there. This is a fantastic example of collaboration that cuts to the heart of the future of our economy. I congratulate everyone in the region who is involved, and I undertake to come back to my hon. Friend on what further we can do to support it.

Charles Kennedy: A number of us were present with principals and vice-chancellors when the Minister spoke to the all-party university group. He spoke about the need for universities to search for cheaper models in the current financial constraints. One principal described that as a potential assault on quality. Will the Minister be mindful of the distinct Scottish ancient universities component, with the four-year honours degree and the three-year ordinary masters degree, in relation to whatever financial constraints are now going to be upon that sector?

David Lammy: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's particular expertise as rector of Glasgow university-a very good university-and all that he does to champion higher education. When I spoke to the vice- chancellors, I think I was referring to the excellent progress that we have made on, for example, foundation degrees as a route into higher education and on part-time higher education courses, which have been mentioned already. We must continue to make progress in this area, especially against a backdrop of tighter fiscal spending.

Topical Questions

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McFadden: Last week the Department published a growth paper setting out what we needed to do to drive forward economic recovery. The priorities included promoting enterprise, better access to finance, securing much-needed infrastructure investment and making the most of the transition to a low-carbon economy. Those are the priorities as we come out of the recession that will ensure that the recovery is sustained in the long term.

Peter Luff: Can a member of the ministerial team reassure me that today's important round-table discussions with institutional investors about how to vote their shares during hostile takeover bids are not just a flash-in-the-pan response to the hostile bid by Kraft for Cadbury, which is unwelcome, but will be the start of an important debate about how institutional investors behave, which is not always in the long-term interests of the UK?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the meeting today between the Secretary of State and institutional investors. We should not see the meeting purely through the lens of a single takeover battle. It is important for the long-term health of the economy that we have long-term commitment from institutional investors. That will be at the heart of the discussions that take place today.

Laura Moffatt: Ceres Power in my constituency is developing a fuel cell that reduces our reliance on carbon by 50 per cent., but it needs to know that the Government are supporting it. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that proper provisions are in place to ensure at this critical stage that the development progresses and we move forward such excellent technologies?

Patrick McFadden: It is always difficult to comment on one case on the hoof, but with the Department of Energy and Climate Change we have published a low- carbon economic strategy. We have put considerable Government resources behind that, a significant part of which is support for the development and manufacture of low-carbon vehicles here in the UK. Low-carbon industries are an essential part of our economic future, and that is why we have put in resources behind them.

Mark Hunter: What assessment has the Department made of the impact on small businesses of a recent decision of the Payments Council representing the high street banks to phase out the use of cheques? Is he aware that that move is opposed by the Federation of Small Businesses? Does he agree that a large number-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in topical questions. May I appeal for short questions and short answers? I want to get through as many colleagues as possible.

Patrick McFadden: It is time for a confession: I am a cheque user. If that is old-fashioned, I am afraid that I cannot make an apology for it. I understand that cheque use has declined more widely, but I certainly hope the transition is managed as sensitively and as carefully as possible-for small businesses and for us cheque users.

David Anderson: The development of electrical vehicles in the north-east has been a huge boost for manufacturers such as Tegrel, which is producing a charging station in my constituency. Will the Minister assure me that the Government and the regional development agency One NorthEast will continue to support such work; and that we will support RDAs, unlike the Opposition?

Ian Lucas: The north-east is a real hub of low-carbon technology development in the automotive sector. Nissan and Smith Electric Vehicles, which I have already visited, are at the forefront, and the investment at Nissan's battery factory is going ahead. I should be very interested in seeing the company to which my hon. Friend refers.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister of State confirm that manufacturing, as a proportion of total GDP in this country, has declined by no less than 9 per cent. during this Government's period in office? That is the fastest rate of decline in our history. How can the Government's new industrial strategy, and their claim that they will revive this country's manufacturing capacity, be taken seriously when they have scandalously neglected the subject and the whole sector for their entire period in office?

Patrick McFadden: Manufacturing is still immensely important to the UK economy and to the region that I have the honour of representing. In the past 18 months alone, we have given significant support to the aerospace sector, to new nuclear and to other low-carbon manufacturing industries. It is sad that that support, through the strategic investment fund, was described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), as a disgrace. We do not think it is a disgrace; we think it is essential, and that is why we are committed to supporting manufacturing in this country.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Scottish Parliament has taken steps to overturn the October 2007 ruling on pleural plaques, can we have a guarantee that we will do the same thing here, for the rest of the British Isles, as speedily as possible and before the election?

Patrick McFadden: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) asked me about that matter a short time ago, but I appreciate that hon. Members wish to see a solution to it. I understand that a meeting involving hon. Members, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice will take place in the near future, and I am sure that they will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Tom Brake: I attended the fifth anniversary breakfast of the Givers Gain business networking organisation this morning. The small and medium-sized enterprises there said that they are being crippled by red tape. What plans does the Secretary of State have to reduce the regulatory burden on SMEs?

Ian Lucas: For the first time, this Government have published the forward regulatory programme-the regulations that the Government will bring forward. The process with this Government, unlike any previous one, has been open, so our engagement with small businesses and the bodies that represent them has been very close indeed. We are always open to hear from businesses about particular regulations, and I always listen to what they have to say.

Jacqui Smith: An increasing number of sub-postmasters face action for the misappropriation of funds that, they believe, is based on shortcomings in the Horizon computer system. Given those numbers, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Post Office to review those cases and that system so that sub-postmasters can be confident that the computer systems that are put in place are there to support them, not to put their livelihoods at risk?

Patrick McFadden: I have received representations about that issue from hon. Members on behalf of sub-postmasters in their constituencies. The Post Office tells me that it has looked into all those complaints, and says that it has faith in the integrity of the Horizon system. However, I am sure that if there are further complaints, the Post Office will properly examine them, as it should do.

Ben Wallace: Myerscough college in my constituency is an excellent mixed FE and HE college that awards degrees by third-party universities. In the light of the current financial situation and the fact that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has been supportive, yet unable to fund the HE capacity, will the Minister consider a review of HE funding in FE colleges to ensure that money gets to the front line as quickly and efficiently as possible?

David Lammy: We have increased funding by 25 per cent. In "Higher Ambitions" we set out the importance of HE provision in FE colleges, which extends the reach of higher education to those from non-traditional backgrounds and, often, poorer socio-economic groups. I am happy to look into the specifics of the hon. Gentleman's college, but the Government's commitment in this area is clear.

Natascha Engel: Will the Minister take this opportunity to put an end to the exploitation of and discrimination against young people at work who are under 22 and who, if they are earning the minimum wage, earn almost a full pound less than their adult counterparts? For me, and surely for him, this has to be an issue of equal pay for equal work.

Patrick McFadden: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government decide the minimum wage rates on the basis of recommendations from the independent Low Pay Commission, which has on it representatives of employers and employees, as well as independent experts. The commission has recommended that youth rates are justified for the minimum wage. We, too, want to see maximum employment chances for young people. I can tell my hon. Friend that this year the commission recommended that the adult rate for the minimum wage kick in at the age of 21 rather than 22. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government, and it will come into force in October.

Peter Bone: The Government have scandalously neglected manufacturing in Wellingborough, which has resulted in unemployment increasing from 1,407 to more than 3,000-an increase of 114 per cent. Would any of the Ministers like to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the people of Wellingborough?

Patrick McFadden: As I said, we are giving considerable support to manufacturing; this was set out in the paper on growth that we published last week. I have to say that there is a stark contrast between our commitments on aerospace, on low-carbon vehicles and on advanced engineering and the utter silence and utter absence of a manufacturing or an industrial policy from the Conservative party.

Russell Brown: Like so many others on this side of the House, I welcome the decision on pleural plaques reached in the Scottish courts. However, we need a UK-wide response to this, because it would be absolutely ridiculous if we found that people living in one part of the country who may have contracted this condition in another part of the country fall foul of different compensation schemes.

Patrick McFadden: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is not much to add to what I said earlier. The Government understand the desire for a response to these issues, not only on pleural plaques but on wider respiratory conditions.

Nigel Evans: The pay package for the chief executive of Royal Mail last year was £1.3 million; for the managing director of the letters business, it was £849,000. If the Government really believe in redistribution of wealth, how about starting with those two salaries?

Patrick McFadden: The rewards are indeed high; the hon. Gentleman is quite fair in saying that. The transformation and modernisation task at Royal Mail is enormous, and for those rewards we want to see modernisation carried through-delivered-to give us the healthy, efficient and modern Royal Mail service that we need in order to maintain the universal service that is at the heart of our postal system.

Michael Clapham: I am encouraged by what the Minister says about pleural plaques, but can he be categorical? I know that his Department has inherited some of the liabilities from the previously nationalised industries. Can he say that his Department would not object to a change in the law that would overturn the decision on pleural plaques that was made in the House of Lords on 17 October 2007?

Patrick McFadden: These decisions will be taken across Government. As I said, I understand that hon. Members are looking for a response soon. A meeting will take place soon involving the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice, which leads on this issue.

Henry Bellingham: Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), and given the strain on public finances, will the Minister confirm that excellent colleges, such as the college of West Anglia in King's Lynn and City college in Norwich, will continue to have the flexibility to respond to local needs and priorities?

Kevin Brennan: Yes. In fact, we are introducing more flexibilities for colleges as a result of our skills strategy, including, for "good" and "excellent" colleges, the ability to do so via cross-budgets, in a way that was not available before.

David Drew: It is pleasing to see that the Government have accepted the idea of the ombudsman for the grocery trade and I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on all he has done to push that forward. Will the Government now just accept the private Member's Bill of our hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)?

Kevin Brennan: Of course, that is ultimately a matter for the House, but the consultation will take place following the introduction of the code on 4 February. That consultation is on not only one model but whether the ombudsman or enforcer will be housed within an existing institution, so at this point I cannot commit to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Alistair Burt: This is a further comment from the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry:
	"evidence gathered recently by the science community has identified entire"
	GCSE
	"science papers with no underlying mathematics, and science questions with no science."
	Is the Minister entirely uninterested in this problem of the connection between science at school and the quality of science at university, or does he simply believe that so long as people are going to university, that is all right?

David Lammy: It really is a disservice to our students and teachers to talk down science teaching in that way, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the £140 million we have made available to improve teaching in science across the country.

Michael Connarty: In the very week when the Crown Estate has given out the biggest contracts for wind power, would the Minister be surprised to learn that I have received a letter saying that there is no course in Scotland for training in that industry and no demand for people to be trained? Will he do something about that so we do not have people from outside the UK building those wind farms?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge investment, employment and industrial potential of those industries. He is also absolutely right to say that if we want to maximise the opportunities presented by the transition to a lower-carbon economy, we have to give young people the skills to do the jobs that that will bring.

Martin Horwood: Ministers should be aware of the current financial difficulties at the university of Gloucestershire, which have come about despite its success in attracting applicants. Are they prepared to meet me and my constituents from the university to discuss the crisis and whether the flat-rate nature of the cap on student numbers is unfair to popular universities such as Gloucestershire university?

David Lammy: The cap on student numbers affects all universities in the country. It is important not only that we grow participation but that we fund students, often with grants, when they are at university. That is why we have the cap. The hon. Gentleman's views on the university of Gloucestershire are best directed to the funding council if he thinks there is a problem.

Joan Walley: Given the priority my right hon. Friend says he attaches to the new green economy, can he tell the House what new European money there is for the west midlands, in order that we can innovate?

Patrick McFadden: I can tell my hon. Friend that altogether, following announcements from across the Government, there is some £500 million-plus for low-carbon industries. That is significant backing for a range of low-carbon industries, many of which we have mentioned in our answers today.

Robert Wilson: Reading college has suffered from a lack of investment over the years and Thames Valley university is now pulling out. It has been announced that Oxford and Cherwell is going to be the preferred bidder, but I have significant concerns about the bid process and the due diligence that has taken place. Please will the Minister take a significant interest in this matter, because young people in my constituency deserve a high-quality education?

Kevin Brennan: I am very happy to look into any real concerns the hon. Gentleman has. I am not aware of any concerns about due diligence with the process-of course, Oxford and Cherwell college won the bid in a consortium with another organisation. I know he has written to me, but if has any particular concerns, I would be happy to look into them. I understand that he is meeting the consortium soon, and I hope that that helps to alleviate any concerns he has.

Andy Reed: A number of measures such as advanced technology and manufacturing and low-carbon fuel vehicles have made a significant difference, but what can Ministers do to assist manufacturing companies that are still struggling with credit insurance? Several local companies have approached me to say that they are still struggling with that scheme. If Ministers can make some suggestions about how they can assist, that would be very helpful.

Patrick McFadden: This has been a significant issue during the recession. I agree with my hon. Friend and many companies have reported problems. It appears to me that there are flaws in a product that is insurance only for good times. After all, we want insurance for good and for bad times. The flaw in the product has been exposed during the recession, and I suggest that we need a better system in the future that helps businesses in bad times and good.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that manufacturing industry, which I have supported for almost four decades in this House, is the only source of non-inflationary economic growth and should be supported by whichever Government are in power and that Departments should err on the side of buying British?

Patrick McFadden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. That is why we have given it support, and why I am so disappointed that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) described that support as a disgrace. I disagree with those on his Front Bench, and I am glad that he does too.

Chris Ruane: Last, but not least.
	Does the Minister agree with the view that the Lisbon treaty was a package of modest and necessary reforms, and that EU-wide co-operation was necessary to produce an efficient regulatory system? That is the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as articulated to the Japanese chamber of commerce.

Patrick McFadden: It is the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have told the Japanese chamber of commerce that the Lisbon treaty was a modest and sensible set of reforms. I am only sad that the rest of those on the Opposition Front Bench disagree. As on several other occasions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows considerable wisdom that is sadly not shared by the rest of his party.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope Members will agree that topical questions are a valuable and valued part of our proceedings. I am keen always to accommodate as many Members as possible, but we could improve in terms of pithiness of question and answer to get everybody in within time.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to give us the business for next week?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 18 January will be:
	Monday 18 January-Second Reading of the Crime and Security Bill.
	Tuesday 19 January-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 3).
	Wednesday 20 January-Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill.
	Thursday 21 January-Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Video Recordings Bill. To follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 25 January will include:
	Monday 25 January-Remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill.
	Tuesday 26 January-Consideration in Committee of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (day 4).
	Wednesday 27 January-Opposition Day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 28 January-Topical debate, subject to be announced; to follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Friday 29 January-Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House about business in Westminster Hall.
	Thursday 28 January-A debate from the Environmental Audit Committee on carbon capture and storage.

George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for telling us next week's business.
	The whole country will be haunted by the traumatic images that are emerging from Haiti as the devastating scale of the disaster there becomes clearer. Many British non-governmental organisations are now mobilising disaster appeals. Given that in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 tsunami, millions of people donated hundreds of millions of pounds to the relief fund, I am sure that the British people will again respond with generosity. I am also sure that all colleagues will want to support fundraising events in their constituencies over the weekend. We welcome yesterday's statement from the International Development Secretary, and we hope that he will continue to keep the House informed over coming weeks. In addition, might he consider this issue as a subject for next week's topical debate?
	Where is the debate on the Wright report? It has not yet appeared on the parliamentary radar. The Government's handling of the report makes the case, more effectively even than the report put it, for their relinquishing their iron grip on the business of the House. They dithered for five weeks at the beginning of the process, before the Wright Committee was set up, and now they are dithering at the end. The Committee set the lowest of all possible hurdles at the beginning of the course by asking for a debate within eight weeks, but the Government have totally failed to clear that hurdle. It is not just the House that is impatient for change, but the whole country, so when will the Government hold a debate on the Wright report, and will there be a decision at the end of it?
	Following today's report from the National Audit Office, may we have a debate on the Government's dementia strategy? The strategy was launched with much fanfare earlier last year, but we now learn from the NAO that Ministers have failed to make the disease a priority, that they show no signs of fulfilling their pledge to provide memory clinics across the UK and that they are unable to prove that the money set aside for the strategy is even reaching those who need it. So, may we have a debate on that crucial report?
	May we also have a statement on minimum pricing for alcohol? For months, the Government have said that that idea is, in the words of the Home Secretary, a "non-runner", but an article in yesterday's edition of  The Daily Telegraph stated that a scheme led by the Health Secretary will fix prices for alcohol units in order to crack down on supermarkets selling cheap drink. Is that a Government U-turn?
	Again, may I ask when we will get the dates for the Easter recess? Last week, the Leader of the House claimed that she would publish them "in the usual way", but the usual way is to publish all the recess dates for the year ahead, once, in October. When is she going to end this state of uncertainty?
	Is the right hon. and learned Lady any clearer about whether she will give additional time to debate the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? There is an important new clause on implementing the Kelly measures, and, if the Government have resolved their internal differences, on voting reform of the House. The House will want to scrutinise both those elements, so will she guarantee an extra two days in Committee for the Bill?
	Finally, may we have a statement on the election night count? A number of senior figures, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, have said that it would be, in your words, "a travesty" for the count to be delayed by local authorities until the next day. Yesterday, no less a figure than the Government Chief Whip told his local paper that delaying the count would increase the risk of electoral fraud. Is there any doubt that having a Thursday night count is the right thing to do?

Harriet Harman: I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the devastation and tragedy unfolding in Haiti. He will remember that the Secretary of State for International Development answered an urgent question about it yesterday. Indeed, the subject of Haiti and of British Government and international support for Haitians at this time was dealt with by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions. I can tell the House that our search and rescue teams, who are recognised throughout the world as having great expertise and experience, have landed in the Dominican Republic and will shortly arrive in Haiti. They will be working on search and rescue, but Department for International Development humanitarian assessment work will also be done, so that, as the search and rescue carries on, the further needs for shelter, water supplies, medicine and food will be assessed. The work of the disaster assessment and co-ordination team is under way, and it will continue to keep the House updated regularly. Of course, we all support such voluntary work, as well as charitable donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee fund.
	I said to the House last week that there will be an opportunity for it to debate the Wright Committee report and to make decisions. We strongly believe in strengthening the role of the House of Commons and that making it more effective is essential to restoring public trust in our political system. That is why the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Wright Committee last summer and why I brought to the House the motion to establish it and got the House's support.
	We have already had a 90-minute debate on the report in Westminster Hall last month-in which 17 colleagues participated, and an opportunity to debate and approve the principle of the election of Deputy Speakers by ballot, which was a Wright Committee recommendation. However, this is a complex matter on which the Government will have to take a view about what it is right to bring to the House. The report was not unanimous in all respects, and there are some complex issues to consider. We want to ensure that we offer the House the right opportunity and that we do not dictate to the House on the matter.
	I do not want anybody to misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman's comments as somehow meaning that the Government have stood still on improving how the House works. We have already introduced major reforms to modernise the House, including evidence-taking Public Bill Committees, pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, greater resources and core tasks for Select Committees, Regional Committees, topical questions, which we have just heard, and topical debates. We have not stood still, but we do have further to go and the Wright Committee will be an important step forward when we bring its issues to the House. I can confirm that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report and decide on its recommendations.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised the important question of dementia and the National Audit Office report. He will remember that it was just a year ago that we established the first national dementia strategy, which is on track. It is very important work that is fundamental to work in primary care, in the community, in hospital-based health care and in social care. It is work across the piece and we fully accept that it will not be completed in one year, but it is under way and it is a priority. We will obviously look in detail at the NAO report.
	As far as the recess is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is already complaining about the announcement of the Easter recess when we have not yet even got to the February recess. Again, I would not want him to create the wrong impression, and he knows that although Members of Parliament work in the House, we also work in our constituencies. We work in two places at once, and I would not want him to curry favour with those people who would like to imply that when we are not here in this House we are on holiday. That is not the case.
	As far as progress on the Queen's Speech programme is concerned, we have had 13 Second Readings since the Queen's Speech and we are well under way. We will consider what amount of time needs to be given to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill when we bring forward the new clauses to implement Kelly, on which there have been talks with all the party leaders.
	I have two concerns about election night. The first is that the count should be announced as soon as the people have voted, and the second is that it should be the right result.

David Heath: The Wright Committee produced a draft motion for the House two months ago and it is still not on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House says that she is keen to facilitate it. I hope that she will tell us when she is keen not to facilitate something, because it will be a long time coming.
	Last February, the Prime Minister said:
	"The old short-term bonus culture is gone. No rewards for failure...the old bonus culture removed".
	I seem to have read this week that it is expected that about £40 billion will be paid out in bonuses this year, so may we have regular updates on that clearly very successful policy?
	To renew a request from last week, may we have a debate on agriculture in the light of the Government's proposals for its future, the welcome announcement yesterday of the supply chain ombudsman and the ongoing difficulties faced on an everyday basis by people in rural areas, such as farm crime and fly-tipping? It is time that we had a proper debate on agriculture, so will the Leader of the House find time for it?
	May we have a debate on public performance rights and music copyright licences? I do not know how well it is known that a new scheme that is to come into place in April will mean that anyone who switches on a radio or plays music in any bed and breakfast, pub, office, charity or carnival float, indeed any public place, will need a licence. I am the first to defend the right of musicians to receive proper recompense for their work, but that is an over-onerous burden to place on people across the country who will not be expecting it. We should debate that requirement, because it seems excessive.
	Finally, the Leader of the House committed a heinous crime against the English language this week when she coined the word "wellderly", meaning well and elderly. Although some old people are well and elderly, may we concentrate on the "illderly" and the "poorderly"? May we have a debate on the fact that millions of pensioners in this country will not receive severe weather payments, after the cold weather of the past few weeks, simply because, although they are eligible for pension tax credits, they do not claim them, and so do not qualify for those severe weather payments? Given the extreme conditions, we should be worried about that, and I think that the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Harriet Harman: I have answered fully the question about the Wright Committee in response to the shadow Leader of the House, and I do not want to detain the House further on that because a number of hon. Members want to get in. I therefore have nothing further to add to what I said a couple of minutes ago when I responded to the shadow Leader of the House.
	We believe that people find it objectionable that people get big bonuses, particularly when they appear not to have contributed but actually to have made matters worse. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will know that we have taken action through the Financial Services Authority, and in many other respects, to curb the risk-taking bonus culture. He will also know that we are looking to tackle the deficit through a tax on the pool that companies set aside for bonuses. He will also know that we want to have a new tight rein on public sector bonuses, which is especially important for the highly paid given that we are looking to reduce the deficit by half over the next four years. He will know that the Treasury Select Committee has been hearing from Ministers on the great range of measures being taken to deal with soar-away bonuses in the private sector and to encourage proper restraint in public sector bonuses.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about food and agriculture, and I agree that we need to look for an opportunity to debate those things. Matters for consideration include not just food production and the food 2030 programme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the rural economy and the interaction between supermarkets and consumer protection, so we might look to find time to debate that. On music copyright, Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions are next week, and it would probably be better for him to try to raise that question then.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the elderly, on whom we have debates relatively frequently-the last one was before we rose for the summer recess. He says that some people are well and elderly, but I would say that he has stressed the wrong emphasis. There is a new cohort-it represents a massive demographic change-of a large number of people who are over 65 but healthy, well, active and energetic and who have a great deal to contribute to their families, local communities and the economy. They are well and elderly, but we need the appropriate focus to be on the frail and elderly-those who are vulnerable, dependent and who have dementia. Actually, however, in this day and age, the overwhelming majority of elderly people are not like that, and it is about time that public policy recognised that fact. And if he can think of a better word than "wellderly", I would like to hear it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thirty-one right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and the House will be conscious that there is a statement to follow. I would like to be able to accommodate everybody who wants to take part, but short questions and answers will be required if I am to have any realistic chance of doing so.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the Government's immigration policy. My right hon. and learned Friend might be aware of a recent BBC investigation into the exploitation of European women by non-European men paying them to enter into sham marriages so that they can get access to this country. That is clearly a loophole in immigration policy, and it should be closed. I hope that she can do something to facilitate that.

Harriet Harman: I will raise my hon. Friend's point with the Home Secretary. We are in no doubt that that practice is a breach of immigration rules and is serious organised crime undertaken by gangs. It is the exploitation of vulnerable women from abroad, and I shall ensure that the Home Secretary keeps the House informed.

Simon Burns: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a statement next week so that hon. Members can familiarise themselves with the proposals and decision to turn Bellamy's and the Astor Suite into a crèche? Were the Administration Committee, the staff associations, the staff directly involved and those who use the facilities consulted? Why was there a need to close those two establishments to make room for a crèche?

Harriet Harman: Having nursery facilities for Members, their children and the children of staff and Officers of the House of Commons is a great step forward taken by the Members Estimate Committee. It is long overdue. I would have liked it to have happened when I first entered the House about 25 years ago. On the question about the procedure prior to the decision, I shall look into whether the Members Estimate Committee can place a letter in the House of Commons Library about the detailed process undertaken and how the matter will progress.

Ian Davidson: Is the Leader of the House aware that £333 million of subcontracts have just been signed for two aircraft carriers? Given that the two Opposition parties have not yet signed up to the aircraft carriers, does she agree that a debate on the future of the Royal Navy is essential?

Harriet Harman: I will take my hon. Friend's suggestion into account. He is right about the aircraft carrier orders. They are essential not only to the military but to our manufacturing base, which we are determined to support. Perhaps he would like to know that I am going to Faslane tomorrow.

Hugo Swire: Many carers up and down the country will be disappointed by the Leader of the House's refusal to hold a debate on the Government's dementia strategy. No one expects the entire problem to be solved within a year, but there has been scant progress in better training for GP memory clinics up and down the country and in better patient support. Will the Leader of the House reconsider and have Ministers make a statement to the House to update us on where the dementia strategy is going?

Harriet Harman: I have already said that there are a number of issues relating to older people, including not only the "wellderly", but those who are not well and who have dementia, so we might be able to have a debate encompassing dementia. We are determined to make-and are making-progress on the national dementia strategy.

Julie Morgan: My private Member's Bill on sunbed regulation is set to receive its Second Reading on 29 January. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as well as debating the introduction of regulations governing sunbed use, we should debate the huge issue of why so many people, particularly young women, feel under pressure to use sunbeds and to get a tan? Ought the House not to be debating that?

Harriet Harman: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on picking sunbed regulation as the subject of her private Member's Bill, and I wish it every success. The need for such a Bill is a sad reflection on the need that women feel to alter their image. However, her Bill also highlights the dangerous health risk that sunbeds pose. I wish it every success.

Andrew MacKay: Given that the Leader of the House was sitting next to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, she will have heard the succinct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) about the Prime Minister's views on the situation in the western Sahara, and she will know that the Prime Minister became geographically challenged. His reply was confusing and will have caused concern to the Government of Morocco and the people of the western Sahara, because he clearly moved it very far east. May we now have a statement, therefore, on the western Sahara from a Minister who can give a proper answer?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can ask that question during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next week. Of course, we are concerned about the long-running dispute over the status of western Sahara. It is vital that a political solution to the conflict is found, and we remain committed, as we always have been, to a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution in the western Sahara.

Edward O'Hara: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Lord Morris of Manchester's Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill has just completed an expeditious passage through the other place, with strong and wide support in all parts of that House. Could she indicate when the Bill will come before this House and give an assurance of Government support and time to ensure its passage through this place before the general election?

Harriet Harman: It is very important that we ensure that those who have suffered from contaminated blood are properly and additionally compensated. I look forward to having an early opportunity to keep the House informed on progress on that.

Alan Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that when most of the country was covered by snow, farmers were warned that if they did not drain the red diesel from their tractors before helping their neighbours by gritting nearby roads, they could be prosecuted? Could the Solicitor-General or a Treasury Minister come to the House and provide a reassurance that they are not living on another planet?

Harriet Harman: I am sorry, but I shall have to have a "western Sahara moment" on that one and get back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Chris Mullin: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend might not have any more to say on the Wright proposals, but I do. I appreciate also that they are ultimately a matter for the House, but could the Government show a little more enthusiasm about them? Were we to vote down everything that has been proposed, that would damage the entire political system and us as a class; and the way things are going, I think that we are heading in that direction.

Harriet Harman: We are absolutely not heading in the direction of voting down all the proposals of the Wright Committee. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the issues are complex. We want to ensure that we have unanimity and consensus, and that we start from a firm foundation, building on the Wright Committee's proposals, and that is what we will do.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Owing to the collapse of Avon and Somerset police's computer system, 30 Indians have been brought in on temporary visas to try to sort the situation out. Given the fact that they need total access to all the records held by Avon and Somerset police to do so and given the world that we live in, could we have time for a debate on the rights and wrongs of bringing in temporary workers in a very high security area?

Harriet Harman: If the hon. Gentleman cannot get a satisfactory answer on that matter from the police authorities in his area, he should raise it directly with the Home Secretary. However, I would hope and expect that proper security measures have been taken.

Barry Gardiner: The application of stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was found by the European Court of Human Rights earlier this week to be illegal. Although members of the public of course want to know that the police use such powers to protect them, they equally want to be assured that they are not being used by the police to go on fishing expeditions. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the matter at some length?

Harriet Harman: These powers are very important indeed to protect our security, and they are only used sparingly. We do not accept the Court's judgment and we are appealing against it. While we are appealing, as we are perfectly entitled to do, our law stands and the police will continue to have it at their disposal.

William Cash: The Leader of the House will be aware of my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill, which is published today, on one sheet of paper and with only five clauses. She will also be aware of the debate that we had on the subject last night in the House. Will she now arrange for the Bill to be enacted by the Government?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps that is something that the hon. Gentleman can put to the Foreign Secretary at Foreign Office questions next week.

Ian Cawsey: The recent severe weather again underlines the need for reliable and convenient public transport services, yet many of our smaller railway stations remain underused. Tomorrow I will chair another round-table meeting to try to make more use of our local stations, but with so many different bodies involved since privatisation, experience shows that doing so is a bit like wading through treacle. Can we therefore have a debate on the rail network and how we can simplify procedures to allow local decisions on the best solutions for each area?

Harriet Harman: I will consider the opportunity for debate, but I will also draw the attention of Transport Ministers to the important initiative that my hon. Friend has taken on behalf of his constituents to address their transport needs.

Andrew Rosindell: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had time to study the report published by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson about dog welfare, dangerous dogs, microchipping and all the issues relating to dog crime in this country. Will she ensure that we have a debate on that important matter and that the Government act upon it as quickly as possible?

Harriet Harman: I will consider that alongside the other requests that we have had for topical debates.

Tom Watson: The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked the Chinese Government to explain themselves after a tech company, Google, revealed that its internal systems had been hacked into with a view to looking at the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that we need a debate on cyber security, so that we can applaud Google's brave corporate decision to end the censorship of its search results and encourage other tech companies, such as Microsoft, Yahoo! and Apple, to follow suit?

Harriet Harman: The points made in Google's statement raise serious allegations in respect of human rights, privacy and freedom of information. Although we are not party to Google's discussions with the Chinese authorities, we are monitoring the situation very closely indeed. My hon. Friend regularly raises such issues in the House of Commons. We are strongly committed to freedom of speech in China and everywhere else, and the matter is one that could be raised in either Foreign Office questions or Culture, Media and Sport questions next week.

Greg Mulholland: Teachers, head teachers and staff have heroically kept many schools open in Leeds, compared with other areas of the country, yet now those schools and their pupils are to be penalised, because of the attendance records of those pupils who could not get in. That is clearly absurd and needs to be changed. Can we have a statement from the appropriate Minister to say that that will happen?

Harriet Harman: Nobody will be penalised because pupils could not reach their schools owing to transport problems. However, it is important that we should expect schools to monitor and do everything that they can to ensure that all pupils attend. If pupils do not attend, individual action must be taken to ensure that their attendance is improved, and if the whole school has a poor attendance record, action must also be taken. We must ensure that all pupils can get to school, but we must also ensure that we deal with the problem of truancy and the lack of attendance.

Martin Salter: The Leader of the House has, certainly until now, enjoyed a justifiable reputation as a parliamentary reformer, but who can doubt that this place still needs to reform its arcane and antediluvian procedures and practices? However, with yet another business statement failing to announce time for a debate and a vote on the Wright report, does she not realise that unless this House gets a specific date and time in the next couple of weeks she is, perhaps unfairly, in danger of being portrayed as a roadblock to reform,?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of my reputation, but what is important is not my reputation, but that of this House and the fact that we need to make progress to restore public confidence. We have already taken many steps along that road, in sorting out the parliamentary allowance system and reforming how the House does its business, and building on that is very much the next step.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was established to honour a commitment made by the Prime Minister to restore integrity and independence to the Chamber? Is that not a good reason to bring forward the Wright report for a full day's debate and for decisions by the House on a free vote? We want this House's integrity and independence to be restored, so that there is power for the Back Benchers in this Chamber.

Harriet Harman: Absolutely, and I think that we are all agreed on that. The steps will be taken.

Keith Vaz: I refer the House to the Register of Members' Financial Interests. When can we have a debate on the situation in Yemen? The Leader of the House will know that, thanks to the generosity of Mr. Speaker, an urgent question was answered last week. However, since then the date for the conference has been moved, from 28 January to 27 January. The German Foreign Minister has flown to Sana'a and a British hostage is still being held in Yemen. Surely we should have a full debate on that important subject and not just be left to ask questions of the Foreign Secretary in the House.

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for raising the urgent question that enabled the House to discuss Yemen as soon as the issue arose. The next opportunity to raise the subject will be next week at Foreign Office questions, but I will look into whether we can have a topical debate on the matter.

Douglas Hogg: May we have a debate next week entitled "Evidence to the Chilcot inquiry"? This would enable right hon. and hon. Members to express the view that the Prime Minister should give evidence to the inquiry before the general election, so that the electorate may know the extent of his personal responsibility for what is clearly an unlawful war and for the underfunding and under-resourcing of British forces when they went to war and in the reconstruction period thereafter?

Harriet Harman: I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that Chilcot is independent, and that it is not the job of the House to breathe down the neck of an independent inquiry before it has even reported. The time for the House to debate the Chilcot inquiry will be after it has reported.

Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on the globalisation of homophobia as politics, the ugliest example of which is in Uganda? Why is DFID sending so much money to countries that promote anti-gay politics? When will our faiths-including the Church of England, the Church of Rome and the Muslim Council of Britain-condemn the new international politics that seeks to oppress gays in many parts of the world?

Harriet Harman: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that tackling homophobia has to be at the heart of our concern for human rights for every individual in every country in the world. Perhaps he could raise the specific point about DFID at DFID questions next week.

John Mason: The Calman commission has recommended that certain extra powers be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. There is cross-party agreement on a lot of those powers, including the one relating to the drink-drive limit. We have a problem of deaths caused by people who have drunk too much alcohol, and I believe that tomorrow is the deadline for the Government to make moves towards transferring the powers. Will they do that?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to write to the hon. Gentleman about that issue.

Michael Connarty: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the free offer scam on health supplements such as the acacia berry free offer, which, unfortunately, involves a company that has its base in Linlithgow in my constituency. Although people cancelled the free offers, they still had money taken from their credit cards for up to four quarters. I am told by the police that a solution would require a change to the banking regulations, because they have no power to deal with such arrangements when people take up these offers using their credit cards. Can the Leader of the House do something about this?

Harriet Harman: It is very important indeed that consumers are protected from that sort of scam, and I will raise the matter with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Julian Lewis: Mine is a western Southampton question. Given that the Prime Minister himself said that the people of Southampton and Totton would decide whether their water should be fluoridated, and that both the Labour Southampton MPs, including a member of the Cabinet, have said that it should not be fluoridated-for the time being at least-because of the 72 per cent. opposition to the proposal, may we have a statement from a Health Minister explaining why a health spokesman in the House of Lords said in a written answer on behalf of the Government:
	"We continue to support South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision to fluoridate a large part of Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire"-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2009; Vol. 715, c. WA239.]?

Harriet Harman: If hon. Members want to make a point in business questions, that is obviously fine, but if they actually want an answer to a specific, detailed question, it is probably best to let me know what they are likely to ask, so that I can give them a better informed answer than the one that I am about to give, which is that I will ask the Health Secretary to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: May we have an early debate on the long-term effects on our constituencies and our country of foreign takeovers of UK companies? In Yorkshire, we have had Walmart taking over Asda with disastrous results, and Nestlé taking over Rowntree. Now, Cadbury is possibly to be taken over by Kraft or Hershey. These events can have a considerable effect on our constituencies and our country. Let us have a serious debate on the long-term effects of foreign ownership of British companies.

Harriet Harman: We have just had Business, Innovation and Skills questions, but I would like to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are acutely aware of the strength of feeling generated by the takeover bid in respect of Cadbury, which is a major UK company. Today, Lord Mandelson will be holding a round-table discussion with shareholders and companies to ensure that shareholders play a full part in corporate governance, including by taking a long-term view of their investments. We need to ensure that the work force and British manufacturing are protected.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 42, which deals with carers?
	 [That this House notes that in the National Strategy for Carers the Government pledged that by 2018 carers will be supported so that they are not forced into financial hardship by their caring role; believes that carers cannot wait because too many are living in poverty and financial hardship now, struggling to afford the basic costs of living, unable to study or work without their benefits being cut off, or facing the removal of their allowance when they start to claim their pension; further notes that the UK's six million carers save the country an estimated 87 billion per year, and that in return, the main carer's benefit is the lowest of its kind, paid at only 53.10 a week for a minimum of 35 hours caring, equivalent to 1.52 per hour, far short of the national minimum wage of 5.73 per hour; supports the Carer's Poverty Charter signed by the Alzheimer's Society, Carers UK, Citizens Advice, Contact a Family, Counsel and Care, Crossroads Caring for Carers, Every Disabled Child Matters, for dementia, Mencap, Macmillan Cancer, Motor Neurone Disease Society, National Autistic Society, Oxfam, Parkinson's Disease Society, Princess Royal Trust for Carers, Rethink, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Vitalise; and calls on the Government to set out an urgent timetable of action to improve carers' benefits and income that protects carers from falling into poverty or financial hardship, reflects carers' different circumstances, helps carers to combine caring with paid work and study and is easy to understand and straightforward to claim.]
	May I ask for a debate on the evidence produced by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care, which shows that, in many parts of the country last year, the NHS siphoned off millions of pounds that was meant to have paid for the breaks and other support that carers need? We need to have that debate, so that we can establish whether Ministers have learned the lessons in the first year of having money made available for that purpose, and ensure that all the money-£100 million in the coming year-actually gets to the carers.

Harriet Harman: Obviously, we have made sure that additional resources are directed to supporting carers. We also want to ensure that the money reaches those who need it. In addition, we are giving greater protection to carers who are also at work, because most carers hold down a job as well as caring for an elderly or disabled relative. There will be new, stronger legal protection in the Equality Bill to protect carers from being discriminated against by their employers.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Post Office is a much-valued, much used and much loved brand. When can we have a debate to ask the Government to put more services through the Post Office and Royal Mail, to ensure that there are no more closures? Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow us an early debate in order to support the post office network?

Harriet Harman: I will look for an opportunity for that sort of debate. We have a strong, ongoing commitment to the post office network and we are looking for opportunities to provide new services through post offices.

Jeremy Wright: May I ask the Leader of the House to return to the subject of the national dementia strategy? She said earlier that it was on track, and I hope that she is right. She will know, however, that the National Audit Office this morning suggests that it is not so sure. The Government were right to make dementia care a priority last year, and to produce the dementia strategy. Given what has been said this morning, however, may we have a proper debate-the first in Government time-about the strategy, to ensure that this important priority is being effectively implemented?

Harriet Harman: Of course we all want to ensure that the strategy is kept on track. It was drawn up following a wide consultation involving primary and hospital care as well as the voluntary sector. I know that the hon. Gentleman chairs the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. The Government are not complacent. We regard this as long overdue action, and we will be taking it and working with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that it happens in every constituency.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on taxi legislation, to discuss the legal loophole that allows some private hire firms to register in one local authority area but operate almost exclusively in another, as is happening in Milton Keynes? They normally do this to avoid the higher charges made by urban authorities and the knowledge exams required. This is bad for business and very bad for customers.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is also a question of the standards being enforced equally across different authorities. I will discuss the matter with Transport Ministers and get back to him.

Philip Hollobone: When citizens from other EU countries come to reside in the UK, they are allowed to bring their vehicles with them, and to drive them on British roads for up to six months before getting the necessary MOT and so on. There is no effective mechanism to enforce that six-month rule, however. May we have a statement in the House from the Transport Minister on the measures that the Government intend to introduce to ensure that these vehicles can be appropriately registered and MOT-tested?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Transport Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Andrew Pelling: A lot of us enjoy watching soccer in the lower leagues of the English league system. What can I do to raise this subject with Ministers in the House? One of my local clubs-Croydon football club-has been having abortive discussions with the council about gaining support. How can I best raise this issue?

Harriet Harman: I think the hon. Gentleman has done a good job already, but he can reinforce it at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions next week.

David Burrowes: May we have a statement from the Home Secretary about my constituent, Gary McKinnon, who was given the green light yesterday by the High Court to challenge the Home Secretary's decision to allow his extradition? Surely the Home Secretary should see the writing on the wall from the court's decision that he was wrong to ignore the compelling medical evidence and wrong to allow the extradition, given my constituent's perilous mental state.

Harriet Harman: This is now going forward for judicial review.

Tom Brake: May we have a debate on the Government's failure, after more than three weeks, to issue travel documents to Mr. al-Sirraj, who was wrongly detained in the US Camp Cropper in Baghdad, that would allow him to come back to the UK to be reunited with his British wife?

Harriet Harman: I will raise that point with the Minister for Borders and Immigration. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has tabled a written question, written a letter or asked for a meeting; if those steps have already been taken but have not succeeded, I will raise the matter with my ministerial colleague this afternoon.

Mark Hunter: My area is well covered by two excellent local hospitals-Stepping Hill in Stockport and Wythenshawe in south Manchester-but I am concerned about new rules under which Department of Health officials are interpreting new regulations for NHS charities, whereby donations to individual hospitals and charities would have to be consolidated into general NHS funds, thus undermining the independence of the said charities, potentially damaging the level of income from donations. May we have an urgent debate on this extremely important matter, which is also the subject of early-day motion 518 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott)?
	 [ That this House is alarmed at the manner in which the Department of Health and Monitor are applying International Accounting Standard 27, which will come into effect from April 2010, to NHS charities; notes the serious concern amongst the Association of NHS Charities and the Charity Commission that this could lead to the consolidation of NHS charities' funds, worth over £300 million annually, and assets, worth over £2 billion, into the public accounts of their parent NHS bodies; believes this would seriously undermine the independence of those charities and damage their level of income from donations; further believes that the manner in which these accounting standards are being applied is entirely inappropriate for NHS charities; and calls on the Treasury and the Office of the Third Sector to take action to ensure that the existing independence of NHS charities from public sector bodies is maintained. ]

Harriet Harman: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to the hon. Gentleman about the issues raised in the early-day motion and to place a copy of his response in the Library.

Peter Bone: Business questions are, especially for Back-Bench MPs, one of the most important parts of the parliamentary week, and not only because the deputy Prime Minister answers those questions so excellently. Will the Leader of the House-sorry, I mean the Deputy Prime Minister-explain why the February recess starts on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday, which means that we will miss the opportunity to hear her on Thursday 11 February?

Harriet Harman: Well, I have nothing at all to say in response to that. I just have nothing to say-sorry!

Evan Harris: The Wright Committee was elected by all parties, so it is only logical that the House should have a chance to vote on the result of its recommendations. Why not, then, just put the resolution proposed by the elected Wright Committee and invite the colleagues of the Leader of the House, including anyone who disagrees with it, to amend it? Why not just do that at the appropriate time?

Harriet Harman: The Committee itself acknowledged that there were very complex issues at stake, some of which required further work and some of which were ready to bring forward. Indeed, we have already dealt with the question of electing the Deputy Speakers. We will make progress, but it is not a simple, straightforward issue on which there was unanimity. We are as concerned as anyone else, if not more so, to ensure that the reputation of the House should be held in high regard. We will make sure that these measures can be taken forward.

Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful for the House's co-operation, as no fewer than 36 Back-Bench Members were able to get into the debate in a session lasting 46 minutes. I am extremely grateful to colleagues for that.

Thalidomide Survivors

Mike O'Brien: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about help for thalidomide survivors. Between 1958 and 1961, the drug thalidomide was used by expectant mothers to control the symptoms of morning sickness. Tragically, this led to many babies being born with often severe physical disabilities. There are currently 466 thalidomiders, as they refer to themselves, who are beneficiaries of the Thalidomide Trust. The Government wish to express their deep sympathy for the injury and suffering endured by all those affected. I will say more about that in a moment.
	I am pleased to report that the Government will now fund a £20 million, three-year pilot scheme to help meet the health needs of thalidomide survivors in a more personalised way. Funding has been found from existing departmental central contingency budgets. The scheme will be operated by the Thalidomide Trust, which will use its considerable expertise and knowledge of its members' needs to distribute money to survivors. They, in turn, will invest the money in adaptations and other preventive measures that are likely to reduce long-term demands on the NHS.
	In recent months, I have met the national advisory council of the Thalidomide Trust on a number of occasions, and it impressed on me its concerns about the continuing and increasing health needs of thalidomiders as they approach older age. This additional funding will help to meet their complex and highly specialised needs, and to reduce further degeneration in their health.
	There will be clear principles for the use of the money. It will be used to explore how the health needs of thalidomide survivors can best be met in the longer term. It will also be used to look at the effectiveness of the scheme and how this approach-of working through an expert national body-might be applied to other small groups of geographically dispersed patients with specialised needs. The evaluation will be focused on thalidomide survivors in England. However, as the Thalidomide Trust has discretion in how it uses its funding, we expect that survivors living outside England will also benefit.
	It is important to acknowledge that this announcement builds on work done with thalidomiders in past decades by Lord Morris of Manchester and by Lord Ashley of Stoke. Lord Morris, appointed as the first Minister for Disabled People in 1974, made Distillers, the then owners of the thalidomide drug, establish a trust fund for affected children. Lord Ashley has tirelessly campaigned for greater recognition of the effects of the drug and the needs of thalidomiders, which has also led to improvements in drug safety. The work of Harold Evans and  The Sunday Times should also be acknowledged, as should the campaigning by a number of current Members of this House.
	While the Government are taking positive steps to help thalidomide survivors, the contribution of the Thalidomide Trust to supporting survivors and their families cannot be overstated. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the trust, its officers and, in particular, to the members of the national advisory council, which has worked tirelessly to champion the cause of thalidomiders.
	Importantly, let me make the following statement on behalf of the Government, as I know that many thalidomiders have waited a long time for it; it has been agreed with the national advisory council. The Government wish to express their sincere regret and deep sympathy for the injury and suffering endured by all those affected when expectant mothers took the thalidomide drug between 1958 and 1961. We acknowledge both the physical hardship and the emotional difficulties that have faced the children affected and their families as a result of this drug and the challenges that many continue to endure, often on a daily basis. In the light of what happened, a complete review of the machinery for marketing, testing and regulating drugs was initiated, including the enactment of the Medicines Act 1968, which introduced further testing for medicines prior to licensing to ensure that they met acceptable standards of safety and efficacy.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank the Minister for letting me have an advance copy of the statement, and I am sure that all Members, and everyone we represent, would want to echo the Government's sincere regret and deep sympathy for the injury and suffering endured by all those who were affected when expectant mothers took thalidomide between 1958 and 1961. I know that every Member on both sides of the House has the deepest sympathy for thalidomide survivors, and although no course of action will ever be able to make full amends for the injury that was caused by the use of this drug, I hope that the Minister's statement will offer them an increased sense of security for the future and give them the prospect of dignity as they grow older, with the extra burdens among survivors that are increasingly becoming apparent. They deserve our fullest respect, admiration and practical support.
	During my time as a Conservative shadow Health Minister-and also before that, when I held an industry brief-I have been in touch with a number of thalidomide survivors, and I have been in continuing dialogue with the Thalidomide Trust and the national advisory council to it. I know that I speak on behalf of all Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches in paying tribute to both organisations for the different ways in which they have persevered in highlighting the cause and the needs of thalidomiders or thalidomide survivors-people use both those phrases.
	The Minister's announcement to the House today, and also to the public before Christmas, of a £20 million three-year pilot scheme to support thalidomiders in meeting their health and care needs in a more personalised way, including through adaptions and preventive measures, will be welcome news to all survivors and the organisations that have represented their cause over the years. It will also be welcome news to the general public, many of whom-like me-grew up at the time of the thalidomide tragedy and remember with sadness the emotional turmoil that many families of their generation underwent and continue to undergo.
	Given the disability and discomfort that so many survivors have had to endure, it is absolutely vital to offer thalidomiders a firm guarantee this afternoon that the £20 million pledge announced before Christmas has been drawn from a sustainable source of funding. Can the Minister also confirm whether the £20 million will be transferred to the Thalidomide Trust in a lump sum or in instalments, and from which central budgets the money will be drawn?
	Thalidomide campaigners have long recognised that it is the Government who have the power to find tangible support for survivors. Over the years, many Members on both sides of the House have lobbied hard for the Government to take action, and many have done so to represent the plight of constituents who are thalidomide survivors-some of whom are here today to watch our proceedings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out in the Chamber on Tuesday, it is therefore slightly disappointing that the Minister has taken so long to inform the House of his intention to make this further money available to thalidomide victims, following his announcement before Christmas. However, that is such a small point that it should not overshadow the welcome news confirmed in the statement. I and all my colleagues will be pleased to report the Government's pledge back to our constituents as evidence that their campaigning has made a difference.
	It is right that the Thalidomide Trust and the NAC will decide how and where this money is spent. They represent thalidomiders and they are the experts on their needs. It is the trust and the members of the NAC who can and must be trusted with that urgent and vital responsibility.
	I welcome the Minister's remarks. Thalidomiders have waited a long time for this. I look forward to witnessing the impact that the funds confirmed today will have in creating better prospects for the health and well-being of thousands of thalidomide survivors and their families, and I salute their courage and example.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded to the statement. He raised two points: the timing of the statement, and the source of the funding. We had hoped to make a statement before the Christmas recess-and I had told the NAC that I would try to make the news public so that, if possible, thalidomiders would know about it before Christmas. Unfortunately, due to some internal issues in respect of funding and some legal issues that we wanted to resolve, we were not able to make certain final decisions until after the recess had commenced, but because I had made the commitment that we would try to get the message out before Christmas, I issued a press statement on 23 December so that thalidomiders were made aware that the £20 million will be available and that that has been confirmed. However, I wanted to make the statement of regret to the House, and that has now been done.
	The £20 million in funding will be paid up front, before the end of the financial year, to the Thalidomide Trust as a lump sum. That was requested by the NAC in its negotiations, and we were able to agree to it. The ntmoney comes from the central contingency funds that are held by the Department, and therefore no funding will be diverted from other sources.

David Heath: May I also strongly welcome the Minister's statement? I accept entirely what he said about the timing of the announcement to the House; it was very important to put that information into the public domain, and I am glad he did so on this occasion.
	I am also glad that the Minister paid tribute to the campaigners who have worked so hard on the issue-not only those in the trust, but those in both Houses of Parliament who have taken up the issue along with members of the press. There has been a long-standing and concerted campaign, and it has been conducted with enormous perseverance. We should pay tribute to those involved for what they have achieved. They have secured not only payments that were entitled from the successors to the original company that marketed the drug, Distillers, but also-oddly, perhaps, in the context of such an awful thing happening to so many people-the real benefit and advance represented by the Medicines Act 1968. I am glad that the Minister mentioned that, because it provides a huge legacy of proper and good regulation based on sound science. I hope the Minister agrees that these events underline the importance of having a proper testing regime with high vigilance following the issuing of a marketing licence, including-to make a controversial point-animal testing because that is the only way the gestation of drugs can be assessed. The Act is a lasting legacy.
	Can the Minister confirm that the research on the needs of the thalidomiders that is part of this package will be relevant to a wider group of people who are now experiencing the onset of old age, with the disability and all the mobility problems that that involves? In some respects, we have little relevant experience of helping people with disability as they get older, so there are lessons to be learned here that can be applied to the wider community. I also welcome the fact that the Minister said no funding programmes will be de-prioritised as a result of the action he has announced today.
	Tributes have been paid to Members in the other place. In addition, I want to pay tribute to Members of this House, and especially the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who tabled early-day motion 779 in the last Session, which was signed by 275 Members from both sides of the House. If I may sound one note of dissent, I was saddened at the time that those 275 Members did not include the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the Conservative Front-Bench team. I know that it was a matter of great concern for the Thalidomide Trust that those Members were unable to provide support at that stage. However, I entirely accept the comments made today by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I am glad that the House has come together to support this very important initiative.

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement. I entirely agree that the campaigners on the NAC and the work of the Thalidomide Trust deserve our strongest support and thanks. He is right that the Medicines Act 1968 is an important legacy from a real trauma visited on a number of families. He is also right that this underlines the importance of the proper testing of drugs, including animal testing. I understand that one of the problems was that although some animal testing of thalidomide was done, it was not done on pregnant animals and, as a result, some of the evidence base was lacking. It is, thus, important that we now have a much better and more effective approach and that we continue to develop it into a better system of ensuring that we do not have another visitation of this sort of tragedy on families in the future.
	The work and research that will be done will not, in a sense, be research into the individual thalidomiders; it will examine whether health adaptions can prevent the development of conditions that might develop if those adaptions were not put in place. It will have some wider relevance, but there is a uniqueness about the thalidomiders' situation that we should not underestimate.
	On the funding, no other budgets for patients or other NHS research facilities will be cut as a result of this measure-we are using central budgets. This is not without cost, because £20 million is a lot of money and it might well have gone on other things, but it is important that this has taken place and we believe that an important priority for the NHS is ensuring that thalidomiders have the opportunity of as healthy a future as possible.

Martin Caton: May I, too, give my warm welcome to the Minister's statement? I am chair of the all-party group on thalidomide, and the positive response that he has given to the campaign that we have supported, which has been led by the thalidomiders themselves, is excellent. I pay tribute to him, because he has provided a new pair of eyes, an open mind and, most important, a willingness to engage with thalidomiders that was not there before he took over this portfolio-he deserves enormous credit. He has rightly paid tribute, as I do, to the Thalidomide Trust and its national advisory council; Nick Dobrik and Guy Tweedy, in particular, have been working on this for an enormously long time. They have fought a very robust campaign, as many of us who have met them know, but they have done so out of care for their fellow thalidomiders.
	I very much welcome the Minister's expression of regret and sympathy. It accepts that what we had back in 1958 was not a lack of scientific knowledge; it was a failure of regulation. Does he agree that not only will that expression of regret provide comfort to the surviving thalidomiders, but it constitutes a tribute to their parents, who began this campaign many decades ago, taking on Distillers and its apologists?

Mike O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to his work and that of the all-party group, which has strongly supported the national advisory council in its campaign. I agree that Nick Dobrik, Guy Tweedy and their colleagues have been robust in their campaign. I have on occasion been robust in response, but I have also sought, as my hon. Friend says, to apply an open mind to this matter. I have also sought to give a sense that I care about how it has been dealt with in the past and that we needed to make progress and identify a way to help the thalidomiders to deal with some of the health issues that they have convinced me that they would face if we did not provide this support.
	When I talked to some of the family members, it struck me that the expression of regret was important for them. It is also important for many of the thalidomiders in recognising that some of the families who care for the most severely disabled thalidomiders have had a very difficult time for a long period. I pay tribute to the care that those families provide-they do this out of love and for no other reason. It is important to many of them that a statement of regret should come from a Minister on behalf of the Government collectively in this way and that, coupled with it, some extra help should be provided.

Tony Baldry: I echo the comments made by the chair of the all-party group, and I must say that the Minister does deserve genuine congratulations. In a Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), we all collectively exhorted him to abandon his "line to take", and to listen to what the House was saying, reflect upon it and come back with a scheme. In fairness to him, I should say that he did exactly that; he has reflected on what colleagues collectively urged him to do. Would that more Ministers took the collective advice of the House on issues of this kind.
	I suspect that one of the reasons why it has taken so long to obtain the expression of regret is that departmental lawyers throughout the generations have been terrified that any such expression would be construed as an admission of liability. Is there not a broader point here for the Minister, who is also a lawyer, to address? Perhaps the House should reflect upon this on some other occasion, but huge amounts of NHS funds are spent on paying lawyers' bills-the Department's lawyers' bills and other people's lawyers' bills-when contesting cases of alleged negligence on the NHS. In any system of modern medicine there will always be times when things go wrong. Do we not need to try to find a system to resolve those issues whereby more of the available money goes to the patients and those who need it and less goes to the lawyers?

Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. I, too, remember the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), and the meetings that I had, both before and afterwards, with some of the thalidomiders and their families made a profound impression on me.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to find ways to resolve much more quickly the wider issues in relation to negligence claims against the NHS. I have had experience of this with a constituent of mine, because we have been trying for some years to get a payment from the NHS for a negligence case. The distress and trauma caused by the delay in making the payment were very unhelpful, and we need to find ways to resolve these issues much more quickly. Sometimes lawyers come in for a lot of criticism, but on this occasion the departmental lawyers were very helpful in trying to resolve some of the issues about making this payment.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that lawyers were advising Ministers over a long period that words had to be used with care because they carry weight and that caution had to be exercised in admitting liability. However, there are ways of saying things and of ensuring that the intentions and the thrust of what the Government want to convey are put across in a way that carries weight and deals with some of the legal issues. Department of Health lawyers were helpful in doing that. May I, too, add my thanks to the lawyers who represent the national advisory council, who were brilliantly helpful in ensuring that we were able to resolve these matters satisfactorily?

Charlotte Atkins: Thalidomide survivors have had to fight every step of the way to win justice. Clearly, the UK Government of the late 1950s shared responsibility for thalidomide and the disaster that occurred. I congratulate the Minister on doing the right thing. He did so first in expressing regret and sympathy, and in masterminding this settlement. He also did so in rejecting the calls from the Opposition when they asked for yet another review during my Adjournment debate in November.
	Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the thalidomide survivors, not only for their courage, determination and persistence in continuing with this campaign and fight for justice, but for the way in which they deal with their disabilities and the innovative way in which they have come up with solutions to the problems that they face in their daily lives? Does he not agree that they are role models to many people who struggle every day with the problems of disability because of the way in which they have worked together to find solutions? I congratulate them on the way in which they do it in such a determined but cheerful and comradely manner.

Mike O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend. She has played a leading part in the recent campaign, which has been very much in the tradition of the work done by Lord Ashley and Lord Morris, who have articulated many of the concerns of thalidomiders in this House and in Parliament as a whole. It has ensured that the thalidomiders' voice is heard, and I pay tribute to her.
	My hon. Friend is right that there is a lot to be said for the innovative and progressive way in which the Thalidomide Trust has been able to make provision for thalidomiders and to help them deal with some of the issues that they have to deal with. I share in her expression of congratulation to the thalidomiders as a whole on the way in which they have been able to deal with some of the disabilities that have been visited on them.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) has just expressed in a far more eloquent way than I could the very point that I wanted to make. I shall make the point nevertheless, because it cannot be said too often. We talk about the victims, the tragedy and the people who have campaigned, but all too often we fail to talk about the mental strength and sheer moral courage of every single thalidomide victim who has had to cope with this disability from the moment of their birth. It is very important that we should pay tribute to the courage that every one of those people has shown. I am in awe of it.

Mike O'Brien: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the mental strength and moral courage of many thalidomiders. I have seen that in my contact with them. May I add that there is sometimes a tendency for people who are physically able to feel somewhat sorry for people who have disabilities. When confronted by the robustness of Nick Dobrik, who has negotiated much of this arrangement and was recently reported in  The Sunday Times as saying that sometimes he feels like Superman, one realises that people do not feel sorry for Nick. He has some disabilities, but he has that mental strength and moral courage, and I hope that one day we might see him in this House.

David Cairns: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, but may I press him a little further on the position of thalidomiders in Scotland, such as my constituents Mr. Stewart Macleod and Mr. Alan Deegan? He said in his statement that the evaluation would be focused on survivors in England, but that he fully expected that survivors living outside England would also benefit. Will he explain how that will happen? Will it be entirely at the discretion of the Thalidomide Trust in England, or is there some formal agreement with thalidomiders in Scotland? Has he had any discussions with his opposite number in the Scottish Government to see whether they might be prepared to make a contribution to this pot of money that would ensure that thalidomiders throughout the UK will benefit equally-let us not forget that the damage was done well before devolution was ever thought of-as they are all affected equally?

Mike O'Brien: We hope that the devolved Administrations will look at the settlement, recognise that there are a number of thalidomiders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and feel that they can make a further contribution to the funding. Perhaps 15 per cent. of thalidomiders live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and a further 10 per cent. live outside the UK. The way in which the Thalidomide Trust has asked to be able to deal with this question is satisfactory to us. We will make the payments to the trust and it will determine the appropriate way of making payments to thalidomiders, including those in Scotland; the trust will adjust its funding arrangements so that thalidomiders in Scotland are helped appropriately. However, that will be an internal matter for the Thalidomide Trust. Funding from this Government on this occasion, because health is a devolved matter, will be for English thalidomiders, but the Thalidomide Trust will adjust its funding to ensure that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish thalidomiders do not lose out.

Ian Cawsey: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his statement. It is no surprise to me that this has happened on his watch. May I ask him a question about the pilot scheme? I have no problem with the principle of a pilot scheme, but it is inevitable that people will move towards asking what will happen beyond that date. Three years is actually quite a long time to be considering that question. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least leave the door open? If, during the three-year period, it becomes very obvious that the work of the trust is needed permanently in the future, can a review be held more quickly and the scheme be made permanent even before the end of the proposed three-year scheme?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The scheme is a pilot and there is no commitment at this stage to go beyond the pilot period. Let me say, however, that we are looking at whether we can create a situation in which it is clear from the pilot that there will need to be a Government decision about future funding and a continuation of that future funding. There is no commitment at the moment, but the evaluation is necessary to determine whether the project has been a success. If it has been, Ministers would, we hope, decide that it could continue. It will be a decision, however, for Ministers. They might want to wait a little less than three years, so that there can be an indication to the Thalidomide Trust of how funding can be developed in the longer term. However, there will need to be research in the meantime into how the money is being spent.

Betty Williams: I also add my grateful thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement today. We all have cases in our constituencies that we have had to bring to his attention. May I also pay tribute to the chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton)? He has also worked tirelessly on behalf of thalidomiders. I pay tribute to the trust, too, for the way in which it has lobbied parliamentarians. I listened very carefully to the Minister's response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for-

David Cairns: Inverclyde.

Betty Williams: From Scotland. His point was about the devolved Administrations. May I probe a little further on whether we could have a more formal means of working with the devolved Administrations? I would like to reach a situation in which thalidomiders in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not treated any differently. There could still be people out there who are not on anybody's list, and I hate to think that there are some people in parts of the UK who might not receive the same service and financial support.
	As Members have already said, some of the carers have left. They have become old and weary, and so the carers aspect of the question is also important. Thalidomiders are also getting older, and are perhaps having to rely on young carers to look after them, which is an issue. I am pleased that the Minister referred to the work that Lord Ashley and Lord Morris have done; I have been on other all-party groups with them. I also hope that it will be possible for the Minister to express his firmness and sensitivity when dealing with the blood contamination issues-perhaps at a later date.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points. We shall see whether the devolved Administrations are prepared to make a further contribution of perhaps £5 million between them, which would deal with the trust having to readjust its own finances internally to ensure that no thalidomider loses out. She is entirely right that there has to be a continuation of care, and that some carers are at an age where it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue caring. They may well need extra help, and I hope that that would be available as a result of this funding, but it is important for me to say very clearly that it is intended that this extra funding will affect neither the tax position of thalidomiders nor their access to the benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled.
	My hon. Friend asked about Lord Ashley, and I join her in paying tribute to him. There is a uniqueness about the position of thalidomiders, but I have made it clear that, if the project shows that a national organisation with appropriate funding can make a real difference to the health care of a particular specialised group, that may have a wider application in the sense of establishing an administrative process to ensure that money is targeted in a way that best helps people with particular and sometimes unique needs.

Chris Ruane: May I endorse the comments made by my Welsh colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) in congratulating my Welsh colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who has led the all-party group on this matter? I also want to reiterate the impact that the campaign has had on thalidomiders in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Would it be in order for the Minister to convene a meeting of Health Ministers of all those Administrations to discuss adopting a uniform approach across the UK?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend asks about convening a meeting, but Health Ministers are in regular contact in any event. The Government have certainly been in contact with the devolved Administrations about the settlement.
	I entirely agree that we should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who has led the campaign in this House. We will be holding a reception at the Department of Health after this statement, which I hope some of the thalidomiders will be able to attend. I hope that my hon. Friend will also be able to attend, along with those who have been strongly involved in ensuring that the campaign was brought to a successful conclusion.

Privilege

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has tabled a motion for debate at the commencement of public business today under the rules set out at pages 167 to 168 of "Erskine May".

John Hemming: I wish to call attention to my complaint that an e-mail dated 4 August 2009 from Withers LLP, a firm of solicitors, committed a contempt of the House by seeking to intimidate a Member in his parliamentary conduct.
	I therefore beg to move,
	That the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise this complaint. If the House agrees with my motion, it will be up to the Standards and Privileges Committee to examine not just the wording used by Withers in its e-mail to me of 4 August, as printed in yesterday's  Hansard just after Mr. Speaker's statement, but the full context of the way in which attempts are being made to intimidate a Member of this House and to deter him, by threats ostensibly directed elsewhere, from exercising that freedom of speech enjoyed by this House as one of the principal foundations of the liberties of the British people.
	This is an issue for the Committee to consider in detail, and detailed submissions will be made to it, but I feel that it is worth giving the House some of the background to the case. It relates to a dispute that has gone for about 10 or 11 years in respect of the Swan area of Yardley and which has been described as "store wars".
	Initially, there was a proposal by Sainsbury to develop the site, but then Tesco put forward an alternative proposal that involved using less green space. For that reason, local politicians supported the Tesco proposal, but then Asda came in and bought a plot of land. Various problems arose. A person called Jeremy Knight-Adams had bought some land there previously, and a compulsory purchase order to buy Mr. Knight-Adam's land was finally arranged last year. He objects to that order, and we distributed a leaflet that refers to the actions of Asda, in particular, and of Sainsbury in buying plots of land. Mr. Knight-Adams has wrongly taken the leaflet as being intended to refer to him.
	The real difficulty for this House arises from the e-mail of 4 August, and also from the great deal of other correspondence that has taken place since. Mr. Knight-Adams has threatened me with proceedings-not related to this House, but directed to a different issue-to prevent me from raising my concerns about the effects being felt by residents of Bakeman House.
	Bakeman House is a sheltered scheme of 120 flats, about 118 of which are occupied by senior citizens. Those most vulnerable people are suffering from living in a building site, where there are all sorts of problems with parking and so on. A developer trying to ransom a plot of land is using spoiling tactics to stop me talking about the matter. He has threatened that he will take proceedings against me, although those proceedings do not mention the House. Obviously, the e-mail of 4 August is very explicit, but there is a lot of other correspondence that will go to the Committee.
	Withers solicitors issued a short public statement on the matter. With the leave of the House, and to be fair to the company, I shall read the statement to the House, which is as follows:
	"Throughout our client's dispute with John Hemming MP, we have acted entirely properly and professionally in defending our client's reputation. We strongly refute Mr. Hemming's allegations that our actions were intimidatory in any way."
	Obviously, the issue needs to be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	Finally, the Law Society has also put out a statement. I am not quite sure whether it means that it supports referring the matter to the Committee for consideration, although I think that it does.

Barbara Keeley: These are important issues for the House and hon. Members, and I should like to give the Government's support for referring the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Shailesh Vara: We on the Conservative Benches also support the motion, as it clearly impacts on what Members of Parliament can say in this House. We should all be able to speak freely and without fear on any matter that arises as we carry out our duties.
	For the sake of good order, however, there is one matter that I should like to clarify. The e-mail in question refers to materials that have been written and distributed outside the House. I should therefore like to make it clear that my comments are confined to what can be said in the House itself, and that Members of Parliament, like the general public, are of course subject to the normal laws of libel and slander in connection with anything that they say outside the House.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that the Standards and Privileges Committee has a very heavy work load, and that it is important that the matter before us is resolved before the Dissolution of Parliament. Will she assure the House that she will make sure that the Committee gets any additional support and back-up-manpower, resources and so on-that it requires? In that way, we can ensure that we resolve this very important matter before the Dissolution of Parliament.

David Heath: I entirely support what the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said about resourcing the Standards and Privileges Committee if this matter is referred to it.
	This is the second time in the past couple of months that my attention has been drawn to a potential issue of privilege that has involved lawyers. I wonder whether lawyers are fully aware of constitutional law and the very important part that the privileges of this House play in our history and our democratic processes. To that extent, I admit that I am a little concerned by the briefing from the Law Society. It appears to question the basis on which parliamentary privilege is employed, but I hope that that is not the Law Society's position.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has raised issues that should properly be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I hope that the House will refer them to it with expedition.

Andrew Murrison: It is sometimes surprising what one picks up while waiting for the next business. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and read the letter printed in yesterday's  Hansard and studied it carefully. Of course the motion is correct, and the matter should be considered properly, but it surely relates to what is said in this House. We must be free to discuss things in the House without fear or favour, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to be extremely careful in what we say outside this place. I have to say from years of bitter experience that the Liberal Democrats are particularly adept at putting out material of a doubtful nature. This case might serve as a lesson to them that they should be more circumspect.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not want to get involved with the facts of the case; I simply want to get involved with the issue that Parliament and Members of Parliament should have the absolute right, as set down in the 1688 Bill of Rights, to say what they like in this House. It is a fundamental right that was restated by Lord Denning in the 1970s when he said:
	"whatever comments are made in Parliament"
	can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.
	As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, this is the second case in two months. We had the Trafigura case, in which a wide injunction was sought against persons unknown and the solicitors Messrs. Carter-Ruck sought to use that to prevent  The Guardian from even reporting a written parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I was at a table the very night of that incident with four QCs, and they were extremely worried about the operation of the law in attempting to gag Parliament in that way.
	As I say, I do not wish to get involved with the facts of the case, but I shall quote what I consider to be the important part of it. It asks for:
	"an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations particularly in Parliament."
	If those solicitors said that, I as a Member of Parliament consider that a breach of privilege, and I hope that the House will vote for the matter to be considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	In 17 years in the House I have used privilege only once, and with great care, and it had the desired effect of getting the matter resolved. I believe that the vast majority of Members of Parliament respect that privilege and use it sparingly, only when it is absolutely necessary. The other part of that privilege is that we should not infringe the judiciary's privilege when matters are sub judice. If matters are sub judice, the House has no remit to examine them, but it is clear to me that the privilege of the House to report matters without fear of being in contempt of court must remain absolute. I hope that this short debate will demonstrate that in true measure.

John Hemming: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the points made.
	Freedom of speech in the House is the freedom to speak on behalf of our constituents. This case is about the residents of 118 flats in Bakeman House-senior citizens in a vulnerable situation who, through the actions of one man, a Mr. Jeremy Knight-Adams, have to live on a building site. That is wrong. To that extent, I am pleased that hon. Members support maintenance of freedom of speech on behalf of the people of the UK.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Afghanistan

Topical debate

David Miliband: I am pleased to be able to open this relatively short debate on the situation in Afghanistan. It is just two months since our last discussion of the Afghan campaign. Since the debate on 23 November, the conflict in Afghanistan has taken the lives of 11 more British soldiers, and this weekend right hon. and hon. Members will have seen reports of the death of the first British journalist-Rupert Hamer of the  Sunday Mirror. These casualties, as the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats said at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, underline the courage and bravery not just of our servicemen and women, diplomats and aid workers, but of everyone on duty in Afghanistan. On behalf of the Government, I want to pay tribute to the fallen, and to the loved ones left behind.
	The rationale for the mission in Afghanistan remains to ensure that that country never again becomes an incubator of al-Qaeda and international terrorism. Although in the last few weeks it is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that has dominated the headlines, after the Detroit incident, the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains the incubator of choice for international terrorist groups and poses the greatest threat to our security here in the UK.
	Over the course of the past 12 months, it has become increasingly clear that the insurgency is strong and, in places, deeply rooted. With some success it has adapted its tactics, turning to asymmetric warfare and laying improvised explosive devices, often with deadly effect. However, it was striking that last week's BBC-ABC opinion poll of 1,500 Afghans across all 34 provinces showed that 70 per cent. of Afghans now feel that their country is heading in the right direction-up from 40 per cent. last year and the highest figure since 2005. A similar proportion-71 per cent.-say they expect things to be better a year from now, which is up 20 per cent. on last year. I will come on to some of the other findings, not least those on corruption, which suggest the areas where the Afghan population want to see change.
	Security, governance and regional support are the key to Afghanistan's future. Last year saw notable developments in all three areas. First, we had the reinvigoration of the military strategy. Since his arrival in July, General McChrystal has rightly refocused international efforts on population security, and made the development of the Afghan national security forces a top priority-including through intensive partnering and mentoring. On 1 December President Obama promised an additional 30,000 troops to help General McChrystal to implement this strategy. Following on the heels of the 21,000 US troops and trainers deployed earlier in the year, this represents a very significant increase. And with other international security assistance force countries- including the UK-together providing a further 7,500 soldiers, it will markedly improve the density of international forces in the key provinces in southern Afghanistan and elsewhere.
	Secondly, President Karzai set out at the end of November a clear and ambitious five-point agenda to set his country back on a path to peace and stability. Thirdly, the launch of the Pakistani offensive in the federally administered tribal area means we now have mutually reinforcing strategies on both sides of the Durand line. The insurgents have been pushed out of the Swat valley, Buner and Lower Dir. The military operations are now focused on the federally administered tribal area itself, notably in south Waziristan. Although the military have taken heavy casualties and many thousands of civilians have been displaced, public support for these operations is holding strongly. With 3,000 people killed in terrorist attacks last year, the Pakistani people have every reason to support these military operations.

Philip Hollobone: Pakistani intervention on its own side of the Durand line has made a huge difference. How much confidence does the Foreign Secretary have that the Pakistanis will maintain the pressure throughout this year and next?

David Miliband: This is an issue that I discussed in Pakistan with its leaders last weekend. The Pakistani perspective has been changed significantly by the events of the past nine to 12 months. The prospect of the Taliban 70 km from Islamabad, which was the headline not just in the international newspapers but across the Pakistani newspapers last year, was a chilling explanation of the threat that domestic terrorism poses to Pakistan.
	I believe that there is a strong commitment in the Government and the armed forces to take on the campaign against those terrorist groups who threaten Pakistan. However, I counsel two things. First, a military campaign on its own will not undo the political and economic underdevelopment, notably in the FATA. As I have reminded the House before, those agencies still operate under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1903 and political parties are banned. Secondly, the Pakistani authorities need international help, as I shall say a bit later, in a range of areas.
	This year will also revolve around these three issues: security, governance and development, and regional support. That brings me to the Afghanistan conference that will take place here in London in two weeks' time. The conference will be co-chaired by me, my Afghan counterpart, with whom I spoke this morning, and the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, Kai Eide. Invitations have been extended to the Foreign Ministers of all ISAF partner countries, Afghanistan's immediate neighbours and the key regional players, as well as representatives of NATO, the UN, the European Union and other international organisations, including the World Bank.
	As the Prime Minister explained when he announced the conference on 28 November, the aim is
	"to match the increase in military forces with an increased political momentum, to focus the international community on a clear set of priorities across the 43-nation coalition and marshal the maximum international effort to help the Afghan government deliver."

Malcolm Rifkind: The Foreign Secretary said that Afghanistan's immediate neighbours have all been invited. Can he confirm whether Iran has been invited; and if so, at what level it will be represented?

David Miliband: I am very happy to do so. The Iranian Foreign Minister was invited, along with all the other Foreign Ministers who were invited, to attend the conference. We have not yet had confirmation from the Iranian authorities of the level at which they expect to be represented.

Gisela Stuart: Does the Foreign Secretary expect the Afghan Government and, in particular, the Afghan Cabinet to have been approved and to be in place by the time of the conference?

David Miliband: I very much hope so.

Shailesh Vara: rose-

David Miliband: I hope that I get some credit on the clock for these interventions, because it does not seem to have been adjusted following the last one. [Hon. Members: "It was."] The one opposite me was not, actually.

Shailesh Vara: The Foreign Secretary is most generous, and I shall be brief. Will he assure me that he will use the conference as an opportunity to encourage the majority of our coalition partners to do more in the effort against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Although a small number of coalition countries are being active and helpful, the vast majority could do more, particularly on the provision of front-line forces.

David Miliband: We certainly want the burden to be shared as widely as possible, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My own sense is that the clarity of the strategy that is now available makes it far easier for countries to explain to their own people why they need to increase their deployments, whether military or civilian. The response of the NATO countries after President Obama's speech was some indication of that.

Edward Davey: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman is going to make his own speech anyway, so he should contain his enthusiasm.
	The basis of the political strategy can be simply stated The insurgency is not a monolith; it comprises many different groups that have, to a greater or lesser extent, co-opted foreign fighters, local tribes, those involved in the drug trade and mercenary foot soldiers who are paid as little as $10 a day. It relies heavily on the support or acquiescence of ordinary citizens, most of whom despise the Taliban but fear reprisal attacks if they resist. The fluid nature of the insurgency makes it resilient, and we know that the different groups feed off and support each other, but with the right political strategy, and the right balance of military muscle and political outreach, we can exploit those divisions.

Andrew George: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No, I am sorry. Let me see how far I can get before the guillotine comes down on my neck.
	The London conference will therefore focus on upgrading the international effort in three key areas: security, governance and development, and regional relations. First, on security, if we want Afghans to resist insurgent threats and bribery, we need them to believe that when international troops draw down, it will be the Afghan authorities, not the Taliban, who prevail. So the conference will focus on how international forces can help to mentor, partner and develop the Afghan national security forces.
	ISAF has already trained and equipped 96,000 members of the Afghan national army, and the Afghan national police are also about 90,000 strong. The conference will also consider how the respective roles of the international and Afghan forces should evolve over time. As the Afghan security forces grow and develop, they will need gradually to assume, district by district and province by province, lead responsibility for security. We also hope that the conference includes announcements about the international community's willingness to fund an Afghan-led reintegration programme, so the Afghan Government need a serious reintegration offer for those who want a route out of violence and back into normal Afghan life.
	The second priority for the London conference is governance and development. With the Taliban appointing shadow governors and installing courts to deliver their swift but brutal brand of "justice", the Afghan authorities need to guard against being not just out-gunned but out-governed. Nationally, the Afghan Government must respond by tackling corruption. In the BBC-ABC opinion poll that I mentioned, 95 per cent. of those surveyed said that corruption within the police or Government was a problem in their area. We hope that the London conference will help to support concrete steps by the Afghan authorities to improve transparency and accountability.

John Baron: Will the Foreign Secretary give way briefly?

David Miliband: Okay.

John Baron: On that first objective, given that it will still take a long time to bring the Afghan security forces up to speed, will the Foreign Secretary address the central concern that in Helmand province, for example, the Americans will have twice the number of troops but cover only one third of the population? When it comes to counter-insurgency, does he agree that that ratio needs to be re-examined?

David Miliband: I very much welcome the fact that we are now talking about a coalition effort throughout the south, including in Helmand. I have seen in some newspapers-it is worth putting this on the record-talk of British troops "ceding ground" to the Americans or "retreating" to allow Americans to take over.

Liam Fox: That is nonsense.

David Miliband: That, frankly, is nonsense, I agree. In fact, I wish that I had been able to say that before the hon. Gentleman popped it out of his mouth! That's my line-that it is nonsense. How many years have we been saying in this House that we want greater burden sharing and to ensure the proper deployment of forces according to need? I know that General McChrystal very closely scrutinises force densities not just in Helmand province but throughout the country. When I was in Afghanistan in November, I spent the day with him and his team, looking at precisely where, throughout Afghanistan, the greatest deployment of forces was needed, and at how the force densities in the key provinces match the best of counter-insurgency doctrine.
	Without going into any operational matters, I assure the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) that the appropriate force densities are kept under very close review. The US forces' commitment to support the British effort in Helmand province is already making a difference, and I think that it will continue to make a difference.

Edward Davey: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: Okay, but this is the last intervention.

Andrew George: Has there been an honest assessment of what the country would look like if the military forces were not there? Is the international military presence not a draw-a focus, an encouragement-for the insurgents and jihadists?

David Miliband: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means in Helmand province or in Afghanistan more generally.

Andrew George: I mean in Helmand province, in particular, which is very much the focus of the action.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will know that the significance of Helmand province is, in many ways, its relationship with Kandahar. That is why it is very important to see the provinces not just as separate islands but as part of a whole. I do not buy the overall argument that international terrorism is being drawn into southern Afghanistan only because international forces are there. After all, we are there only because Afghanistan was used in the 1990s and early 2000s as the base for international terrorism.
	However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right-I hope that the whole House can unite on this point-that we must in word and deed give no succour to the suggestion that we are trying to create a colony in southern Afghanistan, or anywhere else. It is a pernicious lie that is told to people there, and it is dangerous to us and to our troops because it compromises their work. The suggestion that we are trying to create a colony is certainly part of the jihadi narrative, but it is untrue. The emphasis that we are putting on the transition of lead responsibility to competent Afghan authorities gives the lie to that allegation, but we must carry the process through.
	Arguably, the most important reform is to build up structures of local governance to ensure the basic delivery of services, including representation of the people, and those structures will be informal as well as formal. Deciding Afghanistan's internal structures must be a matter for Afghans, but the international community must stand ready to help, and President Karzai's suggestion of a Loya Jirga, a gathering of regional leaders and tribal chiefs, might be an important step in the right direction.
	With respect to economic development, it is clear that only by increasing the training and job opportunities for Afghan people can the Afghan Government tackle poverty and provide credible alternatives to the drugs trade and insurgency. The rise in legal agricultural production over the past two years, with the rising price of wheat and the wheat seed distribution programme, is an interesting indicator of how the Afghan people respond to opportunities for economic development.
	The third element in weakening the insurgency is a new relationship between Afghanistan and its neighbours. Building trust is critical to unlocking a more positive dynamic. We hope that by bringing together the key players in London we will build on existing dialogues and possibly enable progress towards a more systematic approach. In that context, we very much welcome the Turkish announcement on Tuesday that its Foreign Minister will convene a meeting of Afghanistan's neighbours to develop ideas for regional co-operation.
	Of course, Pakistan is the neighbour with the greatest influence, which is why I visited it last weekend. Its long-term stability demands that we lift our sights above the current military campaign and provide support across a range of aspects of economic and political life. That is why I commend recent EU-Pakistan initiatives such as the UK-Pakistan education taskforce. When 45 per cent. of primary-age students do not attend school, and even those who do struggle to acquire even the most basic skills, there is a desperate need for education reform.
	Last year was one of terrible loss for the UK armed forces in Afghanistan. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents with their own, very tragic stories, but the safety of UK citizens from international terrorist attacks depends on the valour of our soldiers. It also depends on the effectiveness of the Afghan Government and the effort of the international community. The London conference will help us to ensure that we have the partnership we need.

Liam Fox: We very much welcome this short debate on this extraordinarily important subject. Let me begin by fully associating myself and my colleagues with what the Foreign Secretary said about the sacrifices of our armed forces, 247 of whom have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. All of us in public life in the United Kingdom should be humbled by the willingness of our armed forces to make sacrifices on behalf of the security of the people of our country.
	I pay tribute, too, to the work of our international partners in Afghanistan, particularly the Estonians and the Danes in Task Force Helmand, for the tremendous contribution that they have made. Very often, some of the smaller nations that contribute to the coalition are overlooked, and it is right that the House pays tribute to them. It is also right that we pay tribute to the civilians who are giving support to our armed forces, including those from many of our defence companies who provide support for the equipment that is necessary to carry out our role in Afghanistan.
	Finally, it is only correct that we recognise the role of service families and the continuing price that they pay for what our armed forces are doing in terms of the effort in Afghanistan.
	We find ourselves at a crossroads in Afghanistan. We have a new strategy-a counter-insurgency strategy based around protecting the people of Afghanistan to deny the insurgents the centre of gravity. I think that that is the right strategy. We have a renewed international focus and vast numbers of troops and equipment, primarily American, pouring into theatre. There is evidence to suggest that President Karzai recognises the importance of tackling corruption, and there is, finally, an understanding that delivering good local governance will provide enduring stability and security in Afghanistan. This all looks very promising-but all of us in the House would recognise that we do not wish to raise unrealistic expectations about the time scale in which progress can be made.
	The Foreign Secretary was right to begin by reminding the House of why we are in Afghanistan. There is only one justification for sending our armed forces into combat-because we believe that we are facing a national security imperative. It was essential that we denied to al-Qaeda the space that was being used to train and prepare for terrorist atrocities, and we largely dealt with that threat very early on. But there is a wider reason for being there-a geopolitical reason of regional stability. We cannot allow the contamination and destabilisation of Pakistan-a much larger and more important regional player, and a nuclear power to boot. It is correct that we remind the British public of the wider reasons why we are there, and see it in a proper geopolitical perspective. It is essential for us to do that in order to maintain public support.
	We must also remind our public about what the cost of failure would be were we prematurely to leave Afghanistan. Were we to be forced out, for one reason or another, on a timetable not of our own making, that would, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, be a shot in the arm for every jihadist globally, because it would send out the signal that we did not have the moral fortitude to see through what we believed to be a matter of our own national security-something that the Minister for the Armed Forces dealt with in his recent speech, which I commend. The impact of such a situation would be felt beyond the Hindu Kush and the Durand line: it would extend across the region into the middle east and north Africa in one direction, and south-east Asia in the other. We do not find ourselves in an easy situation in Afghanistan, but to leave prematurely without achieving our objectives would have far greater costs that would run many years into the future. We should be under no illusions: if we are not successful in Afghanistan, that will fuel latent fundamentalist sentiment in this country, as well as in others, and diminish our national security. The other reason we need to be successful is that if we are unsuccessful, that would suggest that NATO, in its first major challenge overseas, did not have what it takes to see through a very difficult challenge. That would be divisive and damaging for NATO's credibility and cohesion.
	If we can describe failure, how can we describe what success looks like? I believe that there is a clear consensus that success in Afghanistan will be achieved when we have a stable enough Afghanistan that is able to manage its own internal and external security to a degree that stops interference from outside powers and allows the country to resist the re-establishment of terror bases of the sort that the Foreign Secretary talked about. Those who are critical of policy in Afghanistan will say, "We'll never wipe out al-Qaeda", or, "We'll never wipe out the mindset that leads to this fundamentalist, violent behaviour." Of course we will not be able to wipe it out, but we will be able to contain it. We are talking about degrading the ability of those forces to a degree that they can be managed by the Pakistani and Afghan forces themselves without a need for wider coalition efforts. It is correct that we set that in its context. We are not trying to achieve the unachievable, but setting ourselves realistic aims. I believe that the goal of security is achievable, and that therefore our mission in Afghanistan is winnable.
	As I said, we have a new security strategy. In a population-centric counter-insurgency, success is defined by how many people are secure, not by how many insurgents are killed. That is, to some, a rather subtle change in how we describe the mission, but it is extraordinarily important. Eighty per cent. of the population in Afghanistan live in the rural areas, not the cities. Only 5.1 per cent. of the population in Afghanistan live in Helmand, and only 4 per cent. live in the British area of responsibility in Helmand. I say that because there is a great temptation in our media and those who comment on these things to read Afghanistan and Helmand as being synonymous. We are part of a greater coalition effort, and we need to see Afghanistan and what we are doing there in the round.
	For the past three and a half years, British forces have performed superbly and gallantly in the face of a very determined Taliban insurgency. We have seen an increase in the number of British troops, and we are now seeing a greater increase in coalition numbers and a very welcome increase in numbers in the Afghan national army.

Ann Winterton: As the ethnic makeup of the Afghan national army is moving in the opposite direction to the 2003 guidelines, might the Pashtuns resent Tajik control over the country's security?

Liam Fox: My hon. Friend makes an extremely useful point. That is an argument for getting wider and better coverage of all the ethnic groups in Afghanistan within the Afghan national security forces-a task that the Government of Afghanistan need to turn their mind to.
	As I said, counter-insurgency is about protecting the population. It requires a better force-to-population ratio than we currently have in Helmand province; that is why the expected uplift in troop numbers is so welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) noted, Britain is currently responsible for two thirds of the population in Helmand and 50 per cent. of the terrain, but with only one third of coalition troop strength. There needs to be a rebalancing between the UK and US areas of responsibility, even if that might mean concentrating Task Force Helmand's assets into a smaller geographical area in central Helmand. It is very important that the British public understand that this is not the same as what happened in Basra. It is not a case of our handing territory over to the United States-it is about having a better match between our capability and our resources. The Foreign Secretary was correct that those who make such arguments are in fact talking nonsense.
	The most important question for us to answer as politicians-it is very often thrown at us-is this: what is different about Afghanistan now that would lead us to believe that we can be successful, when, as those who are against the war in Afghanistan always say, the Russians were unsuccessful? There are a number of fundamental differences in what is happening in Afghanistan today. First, we are there supporting a democratic Government in Afghanistan, not trying to apply a regime to it. Secondly, the development of the Afghan national security forces is coming on apace-faster than many people thought possible-which is a great tribute not least to the British trainers involved in the process.
	Thirdly, there is the regional emergence of China. When we look at what China is doing in Afghanistan on contracts for copper, it becomes possible to see Afghanistan becoming a net contributor to the global economy if it is given a sufficient period of stability. Fourthly, the advent of globalisation, with the ability of Afghanistan to export products-largely agricultural products-to its neighbours also provides the chance for prosperity and stability through economic development in a way that was not possible before. Fifthly, something else that is not fully appreciated is the fact that there is a large Afghan diaspora, who would have many of the skills for improving governance and professional services, but they need to be given sufficient time to settle down and graft their skills in.
	We must avoid taking the defeatist view that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan. Many indicators suggest that we are actually making considerable progress and that there is considerable scope to give the people of Afghanistan the prosperity and security that they want, so that we can have the security that we want.

Edward Davey: May I join the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in expressing deep gratitude and admiration for all those who have paid with their lives in the conflict in Afghanistan on behalf of this country and their families? We also remember all those who have been wounded-some extremely seriously-in that conflict. I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to journalists, and civilian and non-governmental organisation workers, who are also under threat. Some have lost their lives, most recently the journalist Rupert Hamer.
	We need to spend more time debating Afghanistan in the House. I think we will see an increasing amount of consensus on this subject, particularly following the changes in strategy towards the end of last year. The Government are increasingly emphasising the need for a political strategy to go alongside the military strategy at international, national and local levels. That is extremely welcome. The Foreign Secretary was right to point out a number of strong, positive developments in recent months. Although some have been cynical in reacting to the opinion poll we saw, I think it is very positive. It was the latest of a series of polls that have been run for more than six years, asking the same questions, so it has a degree of strength and credibility, and a foundation, and it points in the right direction.
	There has been a reduction in civilian deaths following the introduction of new strategies by General Stanley McChrystal. That is critical to winning hearts and minds. Most civilian deaths are caused now by Taliban insurgents. The efforts of the Pakistani Government are particularly welcome. Let us hope-the signs are positive-that those will be sustained.
	The announcement that Turkey is to hold the two conferences-the trilateral conference and the wider international conference-is welcome, and I hope the Minister can confirm that China and Iran have agreed to go and talk to Turkey at those conferences. Hopefully, they will assist the preparation for the London conference so that that can be as successful as possible. We have also had reports of successes in the implementation of the counter-insurgency strategy in different Afghan provinces. It is a very early stage, but the reports are positive.
	We should have no illusions: the task is tremendously difficult. As we look ahead and try to push and question the Government to ensure their policy is as good as possible, we need to recognise some aspects of the challenges that perhaps we have not focused on enough. We seem to have a lack of knowledge about the Taliban in their many guises, and about Afghan culture across the many different areas of Afghanistan. We need to do more work and to spend more time on that to ensure that it can feed in to the political strategy, so that we are extremely well informed and so that we can play our part as a true partner to the Afghan authorities. That is why some of us are very worried by the report from the think-tank, the Centre for a New American Security, by Major General Michael Flynn earlier this year. He talked about the shortcomings in American intelligence, and said that US intelligence in Afghanistan was still
	"unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which US and allied forces operate and the people they are trying to protect and persuade".
	We need to improve the quality of intelligence. That is absolutely critical.
	I wonder how well prepared we are for a rich political strategy in understanding how the Taliban respond to the new counter-insurgency. We have reports of a number of assassinations of tribal leaders, commanders and elders who are not linked to the Taliban-they have doubled to nine a week recently, according to some sources. The intimidation of people who might be susceptible to switching sides and playing a key role in reintegrating Taliban people and local people into the mainstream of Afghan politics needs to be understood and dealt with as quickly as possible.
	In the short time that remains to me, I shall ask the Minister a few questions. Have India, Russia and Saudi Arabia been invited to the conferences in Istanbul and London? Have they responded positively? I believe their role is critical. Has the successor for Kai Eide finally been decided? There are reports that the Swedish diplomat Stefan Di Mistura is being considered, but when will an announcement be made? Can Kai Eide's successor play a role in London and begin to meet some of the key players? What is the Government's position on the possibility of parliamentary and district council elections this year? Are they going to go ahead and are we supportive, or do we think that a Loya Jirga or other proposals, some of which come from President Karzai, the best approach?
	On a practical matter, the Foreign Secretary spoke of the importance of training the Afghan national police, but I do not believe the EU has done enough to get enough police trainers out there. It is good that the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is emphasising that, but can the Government push it too? Finally, President Karzai is coming to London. The London conference is important for putting pressure on him, but the international community and the people of Afghanistan need to ensure that he is living up to his promises. I hope the Government and the American Government continue to put pressure on him, because his role in bringing the conflict to an end is critical.

Denis MacShane: I listened with great interest to all three speeches and agreed very much with what was in them. I have been to Afghanistan once. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Defence Ministers that after 1945, some 200 US congressional delegations visited Germany to talk to General Lucius Clay, who was, as it were, the commanding officer in charge of Germany on behalf of the allies in that period. As a result, there was strong support in the American Congress for the continuation of a policy that previously would have run against American views that, on the whole, one should not get involved in foreign entanglements.
	I have not found a great deal of enthusiasm and support from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office for visits to Afghanistan, other than those, appropriately, for Select Committees. However, I think it would be helpful if many more Members of the House went there. When I went with a NATO delegation to visit Pakistan, I took the opportunity to go to Kabul to meet people and inform myself, but I had to pay for my own trip-more accurately, the Foreign Office paid for the £200 flight on a UN plane, then spent six months asking me for the money back. I am not sure whether that was a claimable expense, but I paid it from my own pocket. Therefore, please will the Foreign Secretary involve the House in the matter of Afghanistan, because every Wednesday since June 2003, the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition parties have had to pay tribute to the men who have fallen in Iraq and now, increasingly, in Afghanistan? The tributes certainly represent what the House and the nation think of those brave sacrifices, but I sometimes question whether the nation will accept those sacrifices, year after year, from our rather small professional Army. The reasons we are in Afghanistan were set out eloquently by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, and the nation needs to know those reasons. Visiting Afghanistan can help with that.
	We also need a sense of history. Afghanistan is presented as a zone of permanent turbulence and violence. In fact, for most of the last 200 years, Afghanistan has been at peace, although yes, it has been poor and underdeveloped. When I was a student at university, Afghanistan was where all the hippies went to buy their Afghan coats, among other things. In the early 1970s, a Marks & Spencer was opened in Kabul. Where Marks & Spencer operates, civilisation often follows. I am not suggesting that it should be a goal of foreign policy to get Marks & Spencer to reopen in Kabul and other Afghan cities, but we should acknowledge that the present conflict is the result of a particular confluence of political decisions emanating from outside Afghanistan.
	Those decisions include the desire to launch jihad, supported by the US and Great Britain, in the 1980s, and the provision of Stinger missiles, paid for by the Saudis and built by the Americans, to the jihadis. We created a monster and were then surprised that, after the Soviets had been driven out of Afghanistan, the monster did not quietly evaporate into thin air. We ignored Afghanistan after 1987 for many years, allowing it to become the incubator and supporter of the Taliban, with the consequence that they gave shelter to Osama bin Laden, which led to the planning of the 9/11 attack.
	After 9/11, the reasonable criticism can be made that we took our focus away from Afghanistan and walked down the road to Iraq. I shall not enter into that debate now, but we should be conscious that more British soldiers have died in what one might call President Obama's war in Afghanistan than in President George W. Bush's war in Iraq. The failure, twice in the last 20 years, to focus due political and strategic attention on Afghanistan has cost us dear.
	I would like to see some unity of command. I referred to General Lucius Clay earlier. He was an engineer and builder, not a fighting general, and he was the supreme governor of Germany in the immediate post-war period until German political institutions were able to get back on their feet. I have no idea who runs Afghanistan. I have no idea which Government department is in charge. Who can give orders to whom? When I was there, there were three different European Union offices- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says that that is no surprise, but there are five or six British offices each thinking that they are doing the British Government's work, and I question the level of co-ordination. We know that efforts were made to engage the services of Lord Ashdown. I would have welcomed that, but it was rejected by President Karzai. Do we have efficient joined-up government in Afghanistan?
	Those on the Opposition Front Bench say that by creating a so-called War Cabinet they would focus attention on Afghanistan. I politely suggest that they should find a word other than "war" to use. We are winning battle after battle: when British troops take on the Taliban face to face, there is only one winner, despite the sad sacrifices that are made. But the notion that we will win a war in Afghanistan commands no serious support anywhere, even among those who support our presence there. If the Opposition create a War Cabinet, they may be asking it to achieve the unachievable. Surely we should be thinking more of containment than of confrontation-I think that the shadow Secretary of State made that point. We should see this in the context of what happened after the second world war, when there was a sense among some that we could confront, take on and roll back ideologies that were oppressive and opposed to our way of life, not to mention supporting military and violent action against western interests all over the world. But wiser heads prevailed, and we adopted a philosophy of containment rather than military destruction.
	I continually wonder why the British are taking more casualties-in proportion to the number of troops present-than any other nation save Canada, and incidentally I pay tribute to the Canadian troops too. I regret that the Conservative Canadian Government have set a deadline for pulling their troops out, but I doubt that if a Liberal Administration were to be elected next year, there would be any change in policy. I am not a military expert, but I wonder why it is necessary for so many British servicemen to fall in action or to come home with hideous and life-crippling wounds. We may have to ask our military whether they have got their strategy quite right.
	There has been much talk about Pakistan and the solution to Afghanistan. In part, I accept that Pakistan must be involved, but there will be no solution in Pakistan until India changes its strategic approach in the area. According to a report in  Le Monde on 8 January,  The Times of India reported a secret conclave of the Indian general staff at Simla in December, at which they discussed the double-front strategy-an assault on both China and Pakistan. General Kapoor, the Indian chief of staff, has talked about a limited military attack on Pakistan, but it is beyond belief that a fellow Commonwealth country and nuclear-armed power-and a democracy to boot-can be talking about a military assault or invasion on Pakistan, when we need Pakistan to focus on Afghanistan.

Brooks Newmark: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, is perhaps not playing as constructive a role as it could in respect of Afghanistan, especially given its alleged support of the Taliban in many places?

Denis MacShane: There is no doubt that the ISI was the godfather-if not the mother and father-of the Taliban back in the 1990s, and after 1987, because the international community failed to fill the vacuum left by the Soviets. I agree, but of course in 1989 democracy was suspended in Kashmir, and 500,000 Indian troops moved in. Since then, between 50,000 and 70,000 people have been killed in probably the biggest bloodbath of Muslims in recent times under the Indian army occupation. Some of that was in response to Pakistan-initiated terrorism-the horrible explosions at Srinagar and elsewhere-but India is not even on the way to finding a political solution to the problem of Kashmir, and it is under pressure given the Bombay massacres and other issues. When the Pakistani army faces on its eastern flank an army of up to 500,000, national security demands that it put the bulk-80 per cent.-of its armed forces there. We would like as many Pakistani soldiers as possible on the north-western front to sort out the insurgency there and to end the protected area for the Pakistani Taliban, al-Qaeda and the people moving across to cause trouble in Afghanistan.
	As long as India refuses to talk or to find a political and peaceful solution-I am not talking about any transfer of sovereignty, but about finding a way forward; India is by far the biggest country in that region-of course, Pakistan should do a lot more. However, we must be careful not to typecast Pakistan as somehow an Afghanistan in waiting. I am utterly appalled at the ugly, invented acronym, "Afpak", that Richard Holbrooke used at the Munich security conference last year, as though Afghanistan and Pakistan are one combined problem. It is a racist, unpleasant acronym, and I am glad to say that I know, from recent visits to Washington and from talking to senior officials from both the State and Defence Departments, that they do not use it any more. We need to involve India more in finding a regional solution.
	I welcome the Turkish conference that has been mentioned. Frankly, we have to try to tease out our worries about Iran and its potential possession of nuclear weapons. I hope that on Iran at least there is some agreement that weapons of mass destruction are being planned for in that country. Most of Iran's drug problems stem from heroin being transported west towards Iran, just as most of China's drug problems stem from heroin coming east from Afghanistan. Both Pakistan and India suffer from serious drug problems, so all those big regional countries have an enormous stake in finding a solution to the Afghanistan situation.
	We should try to understand that Pakistan has a vibrant press and a vibrant judiciary. They forced out General Musharraf when we were rolling out the red carpet for him. It is an imperfect democracy- [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is certainly the finest Foreign Secretary that we have got at the moment, and who does know where western Sahara is, has been in post for only a year or two, probably since General Musharraf departed.

David Miliband: No, I met him.

Denis MacShane: I am sorry, my right hon. Friend met him, so they overlapped slightly. Prior to that, the leading Governments of the world-here and in Washington and elsewhere-were not paying enough heed to the people of Pakistan who were anxious to get rid of their unelected and authoritarian general.
	Pakistan has a vibrant civil society and a very good, free and energetic press. It has a strong women's movement and a strong human rights movement. Yes, it is very poor, so the real answer is to improve Pakistan's economic and growth perspectives. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on pushing the European Union hard to open a dialogue and to try to increase trade between Pakistan and the rest of Europe. That is certainly where we should focus some of our efforts with our Pakistani and Kashmiri diaspora, of whom I know many in my constituency. They are men and women of peace-there is a Sufi version of the strand or path of Islam-and they are as horrified as any of us by the language of jihad and fundamental Islamism.
	We have to look again at the ideology that spurs on the Taliban and other extremists. That ideology is not of the Islam religion, which has the same respect as any other Abrahamic faith, but is a coherent world ideology of Islamism that is rooted in the Muslim brotherhood that was founded by Hassan al-Banna in the 1920s and that has developed steadily since.  [ Interruption. ] I hear again complaints from Conservative Members about my discussing Islamism as an ideology, but it is precisely the failure to understand that ideology and to work out ideological and political ways of confronting and exposing it that have left western countries vulnerable.

Andrew Murrison: In no way can the right hon. Gentleman interpret any chuntering that he might inadvertently have heard from Conservative Front Benchers as criticism of anybody's ideology. For his information, we were simply saying that we could be spared the history lesson, once again.

Denis MacShane: Those who do not like history lessons often find themselves repeating the errors of history. Up to now, this has been a completely non-partisan debate, but after that Bourbon intervention from someone who has learned nothing and forgotten nothing-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that this has been a very reasonable debate so far. Perhaps we can keep it that way.

Denis MacShane: I was talking about bourbon as a drink of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	What then do we have to do? We have to engage with the Muslim world and Muslim politicians much more strongly and seriously. We must try constantly to explain to them why any endorsement, however soft, of aspects of Islamism that lead to attacks on the universal values of human rights-whether those rights are freedom of expression, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, the rights of men and women to be gay, or the right of women to control their own lives-feeds what is a cause of deep repression and oppression in Afghanistan. We have to find ways of engaging our British Pakistani and Kashmiri community. We have noble Lords, hon. Members of this House and many councillors who could play a leading role by talking in Pakistan, in Kashmir and to the community here about the need for a new approach from Britain that respects the faith of Islam but utterly rejects any ideological or violent expressions of it. The Taliban insist that they are giving expression to the ultimate implementation, as a political philosophy, of Islamism, and that they are obeying what the faith demands. That is a false line and we need to confront it.
	I conclude by urging right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to find ways of getting more MPs and other people to Afghanistan to understand the situation, and I urge that our Army chiefs be invited to consider using containment more and engaging in less confrontation. We need to reduce the casualty rate if the current support of the nation is to be sustained for a longer period. I urge that we should invite India to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem by beating the drums of war, in Simla and New Delhi, against Pakistan. I urge that we use and harness our Pakistani British citizens to increase economic relations with Pakistan. We should set up effective structures using the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office, the Departments that deal with education and other Departments to find ways of explaining that what is happening in Afghanistan is a threat, not just to the region and not just in terms of providing incubators for terrorism in our country, but to everything that we should value if we want a peaceful and prosperous world.

Andrew Robathan: I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had to say. He made some interesting and important points, some of which were somewhat disjointed, if I may say so, and some of which were slightly rambling. May I pick him up on one point, on which I disagree with him? He accuses the Conservatives of being in some way perverse in wanting to have a War Cabinet, but he must ask himself what on earth is happening to young men in Afghanistan. They are in firefights the like of which have not been seen by the British Army for 50 years. As a former soldier, I would say that it is a war, and I think that most of those young men would also say that it is a war.
	I welcome the debate. I am sorry that we are having it on a very quiet Thursday when people are rushing to get back to their snow-covered constituencies, and I hope that we will have more debates on this issue, because there is, as has been said, a terrible lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding about what is happening in Afghanistan, both here in the House of Commons and throughout the country. That is particularly worrying. I have no special insight into what is happening in Afghanistan, and I am certainly not an expert. Both Ministers and fellow Conservatives will be pleased to know that I am not going to put forward some absolutely fundamental, clever plan to solve the whole Afghanistan issue, because I do not have that insight.
	However, I do know the area a little. I have been to Afghanistan often, and I have spent a couple of very enjoyable holidays trekking on the Afghan border in the most beautiful countryside imaginable, with charming people. I remember seeing, some 25 years ago, Massoud's mujaheddin streaming across border passes from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and some coming back on mules having had their legs blown off by Soviet butterfly mines. I have some slight understanding of the area, but that is all.
	I also went there last year on a whistle-stop tour, and I thank the Ministry of Defence for laying that on, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Rotherham said. It was far too short a visit and we did not get out to the forward operating bases, but I came back with a clear view, not just from the briefing, of the medical evacuation plans that we had in place in Kandahar and in Bastion. It was valuable, albeit rather too short for my liking.
	We also had a good briefing yesterday, again laid on by the MOD. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and others for that, because they are certainly trying to keep people abreast of what is happening. I am not sure that they are being entirely successful, but I cannot blame them entirely for that.
	Those of us who know some history of the first and second Afghan wars know the traps that we allowed ourselves to be led into. The history of Afghanistan is not one of a united country. The right hon. Member for Rotherham referred to Afghanistan in the 1970s, when I, too, was young.

Denis MacShane: A hippy?

Andrew Robathan: Never a hippy, no.
	People came back from Kabul with those ghastly, smelly goatskin coats, which then sat in a cupboard and destroyed many student lodgings, as I remember. At the time, Kabul was a very civilised and beautiful city, and the King was moving towards a much more modern society, certainly in the urban area of Kabul although perhaps not in the rural areas. However, Afghanistan was never an entirely united country. As I understand it, it was always a fairly loose confederation, for want of a better word, of tribal areas. That is certainly what it appears to be now. I fear that in the constitution that has been created, assisted by the UN and others, we have perhaps tried to make Afghanistan into one centralised country. I do not have any great insight, but that seems to be turning into a difficulty. As has been mentioned already, it appears that the Pashtuns, who used to be called Pathans, resent other tribes lording it over them. I wonder whether we in Britain or in the UN can or indeed should aim to have a centralised Government in Kabul, as appears to be the case at the moment. It certainly does not seem to be working.
	To stick with history, what was remarkable in the first and second Afghan wars was the way in which having foreigners in the country succeeded dramatically in uniting all the tribes against the foreign invader. I fear that we are seeing that problem to a certain extent now, which is why it is so important that the Afghans take over responsibility for law and order.
	As we have seen both in history and recently, Afghanistan is a place of shifting loyalties. Loyalties are not laid down as we might think. People do not say, "My gosh, I'm an Afghan and I'm going to support the Afghan Government." That is self-evidently not the case, which was true in 1840 and has been subsequently, so we should be realistic about what can happen there.
	I do not know whether hon. Members have read the autobiography of John Masters, who wrote "Bhowani Junction" and other books. It is called "Bugles and a Tiger", and I recommend it to everybody. Apart from anything else, it is a rattling good read. As an 18-year-old officer, he went out in command of a platoon of English troops to the North West Frontier, where in 1935 British troops were still being flayed alive by the Pathans-the Pashtuns-who did not see much of a border across the Durand line. It is worth remembering that that was in the lifetime of people who are around today. When we went into Afghanistan, we perhaps should have remembered the other half of the quotation about where angels fear to tread.
	Finally on history, we can examine what the Soviets did. Of course it was a communist revolution that brought down the King and the Soviet invasion that led to the current chaos, destruction and poverty in Afghanistan.

Brooks Newmark: As my hon. Friend will know, I spent a week in Afghanistan at the end of November and had the opportunity to meet many Pashtuns, about whom he has been talking. Many feel incredibly alienated from the Government and from what is going on. They feel that they have no role in politics or in the army, which they view as a Tajik army. They view the leader, Karzai, as not really a Pashtun, though he is a Pashtun. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should be doing more to figure out ways to get the Pashtun community more engaged with what is going on in the country, so that they are not driven into the arms of the Taliban?

Andrew Robathan: As I said, I do not have a prescriptive solution, but my hon. Friend makes an excellent point from his own experience. Part of the reason why I wished to raised these matters was that I am not sure that the model of government in Afghanistan will work in the long term-I cannot say.

Ann Winterton: The points that have just been made are valid. We are currently in a delicate situation in Afghanistan, bearing in mind that when the Soviet regime left there was a civil war between the Pashtuns and the anti-Pashtun, Tajik-led forces. That is related to the ethnic tribal mix that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) mentioned, which does not appear to be recognised adequately in the deliberations of the various organisations and countries involved in Afghanistan.

Andrew Robathan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not just I, but the west, the United Nations and others should beware of too many prescriptive solutions.

Ann Winterton: That is not a prescriptive solution.

Andrew Robathan: No, but as far as possible we should let the Afghans determine for themselves how they wish to run things.
	I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary-in a speech in which, unusually, I disagreed with very little-discuss corruption and the fact that it has to be sorted out. Corruption is endemic in Afghanistan, and anyone who has travelled in the area knows the cries of "Baksheesh" along the streets. We should therefore not be surprised. It is difficult to defend British soldiers dying to defend a Government who are steeped in corruption, and that has to be sorted out.
	I wish briefly to address three problems: whether the current strategy is working, the question of public support, which others have mentioned, and the long-term impact on our armed forces. As I recall, British and American troops invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. I naively believed that we might be able to establish a western-style democratic Government who would give women all the rights that they have in the UK, and I think I might have made some comments to that effect. Now, most people accept that it is a different country in more ways than one.
	It was not until four years later that we deployed troops to Helmand. We have now been at work in Afghanistan for nine years, yet the war is not abating. Of course, the second world war was over in six years and the first world war-the war to end all wars, as I recall-was over in four. We need to consider that time frame, because it puts into context everything else that we are doing. I am not coming up with an answer; I am just putting the matter forward. I conclude that the strategy so far has not worked, but it might be getting better. I base that on reports from not just the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who will be pleased to know that I did not disagree with a word of his speech, but from soldiers coming back from the front line to whom I have spoken and those who are there now. They say that things are changing and working. I am delighted to hear that. The US reinforcements, far from being something to be ashamed of, are a great boon, and I hope that they can help us to see the campaign to a finish some time in the foreseeable future.
	There is a danger, as hinted at today, that we will not stick with the campaign. If we do not, however, we will send every message possible to jihadists everywhere that the west does not have the resolve to stay with it. However, that does not mean that Members of Parliament such as myself, and Opposition parties, should not be critical-in a positive way-or alert people to the problems being faced, without undermining the situation, I hope.
	It is self-evident that public support for the war is not growing; it needs to be bolstered and we need to send a more positive picture. The Foreign Secretary's remarks were very positive, as we need to be-without being complacent. Issues such as the planting of more wheat in Helmand are hugely important. People need to understand that there is a return to normality-or greater normality-and that, similarly, one can walk safely around some Helmand villages where a year or two ago one could not. I am not a great believer in spin, but I think that we need an exercise in public relations. I do not mean to be particularly critical, but so far that has not been working. We need to convince some media commentators that our cause is worth while, although that should not involve deception, I hasten to add.
	The worst thing for public perception is the sight of the young men-and at least one woman, I think-returning in coffins. It is gutting beyond belief. I have never worn badges or wristbands, or anything like that except for Remembrance day poppies, but I wear a wristband now, because what is happening is so awful. How can we not be moved? My old battalion-the Coldstream Guards-is in Afghanistan at the moment. So far it has had only one fatality, and god willing there will be no more. Injuries have been referred to as well. Although this is all deeply depressing, the long-term effects on the armed forces are of greater concern. One such effect has been mentioned this week: 20 per cent. of infantry soldiers not being available for active service. I happen to know that the figure has always been surprisingly high, for all sorts of reasons, but I still think that that is an issue. Other particular issues are the long-term employment of injured soldiers-some will be multiple amputees-how they can be employed in the armed forces and what assistance they can be given subsequently.
	I would like to address two further long-term impacts on the armed forces. First, public attitudes towards the armed forces have in many ways improved. I think of Wootton Bassett and parades through other towns-Leicester among them-in which the public turn out to express their support. That is very positive. Furthermore, as I understand it-the Minister will correct me, if I am wrong-recruitment has not fallen, although of course there is a recession. Part of the reason for that is that young men want adventure. We need to build on the fact that public attitudes have improved, and we should not be complacent. Nevertheless, things are not all negative.
	The second, and perhaps more controversial, point concerns the long-term impact on the armed forces of the defence cuts announced on 15 December. Everybody in the House will understand that they are very serious cuts in our capabilities. I hope that we will not be in Afghanistan for ever, but we will be in need of our armed forces for the foreseeable future-certainly for all of my lifetime.
	I shall not detain the House any longer. I welcome this debate, although I think that we should have a longer one in which more people can take part and on a less quiet day-if I may put it that way. I would like the Minister to address, although not in huge detail, some of the questions asked, including mine.

Brooks Newmark: I was not expecting to say anything today, but I would like to put on record my thanks to some of the organisations that I visited during my time in Afghanistan at the end of November. In particular, the work of the Department for International Development is extremely good. It is doing a great job in the midst of an active, hot war. Its work is excellent. One observation that I might make, however, is that in trying to encourage farmers-DFID is doing a lot of work on agriculture and agribusiness-it can be counter-productive to bring in seed from outside the area, for instance, when we should be trying to buy it from local farmers to encourage them to develop that aspect of agriculture.
	The Aga Khan foundation is doing some fantastic work, helping in excess of 2.5 million people in Afghanistan right across the board. The health care work being done by Merlin in the north-in particular, its work to give women who have severe problems giving birth the medical support that they need to prevent more deaths-is also excellent.
	The final group doing excellent work that I should like to mention is Turquoise Mountain. Anybody who has an opportunity to visit Kabul should go to see the excellent work that Turquoise Mountain is doing in one area of the old city, identifying craftsmen and people with tremendous skills from around the country and bringing them in to help rebuild that area, which has been completely devastated. I should also like to thank all the organisations out there that give money to organisations such as Merlin and Turquoise Mountain.

Denis MacShane: Turquoise Mountain is connected to Rory Stewart, who hopes to enter this House as an hon. Member. However, as I understand it from reading his interesting books and articles, he is rather against the military presence and involvement in Afghanistan. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there will be a rethinking of policy on Afghanistan if Rory Stewart becomes a leading Conservative Member?

Brooks Newmark: Should he get in, Rory Stewart will bring a wealth of experience on Afghanistan. He, perhaps more than anybody, will be listened to. I have read his book and I hope that our Front-Bench team will want to engage with him to hear what he has to say. With his experience, he certainly brings an interesting perspective, and we should listen to what he has to say.
	The work of Turquoise Mountain, in its £25 million project, is helping to rebuild part of the old city that has been destroyed by using local craftsmen. In addition, the project is bringing health care to that part of the city, as well as primary education, which is much needed by many in Kabul.

Bill Rammell: I know that it is always customary to sum up by saying that we have had a good debate, but this time that has genuinely been the case. What has struck me most forcefully is the enormous degree of consensus across the House. That unity is insufficiently recognised in the wider public domain, particularly in the media. It could be that we are all wrong and misguided. However, I happen to think that MPs across the House, having looked at the issues in enormous detail, recognise the centrality of what is happening in Afghanistan to our safety and security. In the short time available, I want to respond to some of the points that have been made.
	I agreed with a lot of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, particularly the tribute that he paid to the Estonians and the Danes, who are making an enormous contribution alongside us in Helmand. The fact that we are in an international coalition, with 44 nations currently taking part, is often under-recognised in the public debate. I also agreed with him about the impact on Pakistan and the importance of that country. I have no doubt whatever that were we precipitously to withdraw from Afghanistan before it was safe to do so, there would be a return of the Taliban and the al-Qaeda capability in Afghanistan, and a massive flow of refugees across the border into Pakistan, making that country-a country that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, possesses nuclear weapons-more unstable. That underlines the risk that we face.
	However, I would take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments about British troops handing over Basra to the United States. We handed over responsibility to the Iraqi forces, which was the right thing to do in the circumstances. It was done through agreements and our troops made an enormous contribution.
	Like me, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, underlined at the beginning of his contribution the increasing consensus on the issue across all parties in the House. That is welcome. He asked a number of specific questions about the London conference and the possible participation of China, Iran, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia. All have been invited, but not all have yet replied. It is certainly our hope that all those countries will take part.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about the lack of knowledge and understanding of the Taliban. Given the nature of the Taliban, and the fact that it is, in many senses, a secret organisation, that point has plausibility on one level. However, we are doing our level best to get a genuine understanding of the Taliban. We certainly need to understand more, particularly if we are to follow the process of political reconciliation being led by the Afghan Government, in which those elements of the Taliban who are prepared to renounce violence can become part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem.

Julian Lewis: As our understanding of the attitudes of the Taliban is so important to this process, will the Minister share with the House any assessment the Government have made of the relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, given that al-Qaeda brought about the downfall of the Taliban in the first place? Is there still an alliance between the two, or is there now a rift between them?

Bill Rammell: There certainly was an alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaeda; that was one of the principal reasons that we and our partners went into Afghanistan in 2001. My understanding is that such a relationship still exists. Were we precipitously to withdraw, the risk of that relationship re-establishing itself would be one of the biggest causes for concern.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also asked me about elections. The district elections have been postponed, and there is still a decision to be made on the parliamentary elections.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made an important contribution to the debate. He talked about the need for more Members of the House to have direct experience of the situation by visiting Afghanistan so that they may better understand and better articulate what is happening on the ground. That is a powerful point that we need to take on board, but there is one important caveat, which is that we must take account of the operational environment and the security considerations, and the impact that such visits could have on our troops. Nevertheless, he makes an important point, and I will certainly take his suggestion back to the Department and see what more we can do, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, to facilitate such visits.
	My right hon. Friend asked which Government Department ran Afghanistan. I can tell him that there is intense, detailed co-operation across the three principal Departments concerned. People sometimes argue that there should be one lead Department, but, based on my seven and a half years' experience as a Minister, I believe that if we were to remove a direct lead responsibility from one Department, priority would no longer be given to its issues. That might be right or wrong, but it is the reality. That is why I believe that we are right to continue with separate Departments having specific responsibilities and focusing their efforts accordingly, while working co-operatively. There are regular meetings of the Ministerial Committee on National Security, International Relations and Development-NSID-to pull that work together, led by the Prime Minister.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made an important contribution to the debate. He started by referring to his holiday experience in Afghanistan. I have to say that, at that point, I turned to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) and said that I had never had the hon. Gentleman down as a hippy. Later, he confirmed that he was most certainly not one, and that he clearly has a long understanding of these issues. He referred to the regular briefings that the Ministry of Defence is conducting, led by the military, and to the one that took place yesterday. Those briefings are driven by our desire to give as much information as possible about what is happening operationally on the ground, so that parliamentarians may be better able to explain the mission as it is taking place.
	The hon. Gentleman questioned the governmental structure in Afghanistan, which I think needs to be put into perspective. It is driven by the Afghans, and we need to recognise that Afghanistan is an independent country. I think the structure is working, but we must remember that Afghanistan is the fifth poorest country in the world and its development is light years behind anything that we have experience of. That factor needs to be taken into account. Nevertheless, progress is being made. The Foreign Secretary referred to the most recent BBC opinion poll, which showed that 70 per cent. of Afghans believed that their country was moving in the right direction.
	President Karzai and his Administration certainly need to face up to the issue of corruption, but a really important political point for me-it is insufficiently understood in some of our public debates-is that Karzai represents the will of the Afghan people. Anyone who looks at the matter in detail reaches that conclusion. So yes, we need to use the levers at our disposal to influence with our partners the shape of what is happening, but we also need to recognise that Karzai is leading a Government who represent the will of the Afghan people.
	The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned corruption and was concerned that we were defending a corrupt Government in Afghanistan. Let me be clear that the Afghan Government need to do more to face up to corruption, but our troops are there and are putting their lives at risk, not to defend a corrupt Government but to defend our national security and our national interest. That is one of the issues on which we need the strongest unity.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of public support. Undoubtedly, the last six to nine months have been extraordinarily demanding and we have tragically lost too many of our troops. Nevertheless, the last comprehensive opinion poll commissioned by the Ministry of Defence showed something like-I am quoting from memory-47 per cent. in favour of the mission and 42 per cent. against it. I think that demonstrates, given all that has happened, that there is a deep underlying understanding of the importance of what is happening in Afghanistan and of the fact that it serves our national interest.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the media. If one looks at the coverage of Afghanistan in the media over the last four, six or eight weeks compared to what it was previously, one finds that some progress is being made-but more is needed.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the appalling loss of life that has taken place. That is hugely challenging: every loss of life is something that we should enormously regret, but I also think we need to understand and articulate the fact that no military action has ever been undertaken without risk. If we, the media and the public create an impression or understanding that military conflict is possible without casualties, we risk undermining the necessary basis for the military actions that need to be taken in our national interest.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the PR10 statement-on procurement-before Christmas, which he described as defence cuts. What we were doing, rightly in my view, was demonstrating that Afghanistan was our main effort and that we needed to take some decisions within an overall budget that was not decreasing to ensure that that was case. Following the visits of the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Foreign Secretary to Afghanistan, I was interested to read in the Sunday press that they were not a million miles from that position, saying that they would protect efforts in Afghanistan while other areas in the MOD would be cut back-and cut back significantly. If the hon. Member for Blaby has any concerns about that, he should take them up with his Front-Bench team.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister who, if I may say so, is making a very good speech. I agree with most of what he said- [Interruption.]Exactly, until just then. I may well be told off if I have got this wrong, but I think our policy is that we have a strategic defence review to determine what is needed to defend this country.

Bill Rammell: That is exactly the same as the Labour party's position, and we are committed to it; a Green Paper will shortly be forthcoming to inform our strategic defence review. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to refer to the press briefing issued following the visit by the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Foreign Secretary, which made it clear that the Conservative party's intention, were it to be elected to government, was to protect efforts in Afghanistan but to cut back elsewhere in defence. If I have got that wrong or if the briefing was wrong, I am sure that the shadow Defence Secretary or one of his colleagues will intervene.
	In conclusion-

Julian Lewis: The Minister is moving on.

Bill Rammell: No, I am happy to pause and await the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Julian Lewis: My understanding is that there was no briefing of any sort whatever. If the Minister had a copy of it, I am sure he would have shared it with the House.

Bill Rammell: That is the oldest and weakest defence in the book. I think the hon. Gentleman knows where those briefings came from. This has nevertheless been a good debate and the consensus I referred to centred around the recognition across political parties that our efforts in Afghanistan are about pursuing our national interest and our national security.
	We are there as part of an international coalition. I think that none of us has any doubt whatever that were we to withdraw precipitately, before the Afghans have the capability to defend themselves, the safety and security of our country would be significantly less. That is not the same as saying we want our troops to be in Afghanistan for ever. That is why our efforts are focused on building the capacity, capability and numbers of the Afghan forces through training, mentoring and partnering, so we can get to the stage at which it is safe for our troops to withdraw. That is why before Christmas we took the decision to uplift our troop numbers by 500, along with our international partners. It is also why we have urged the Karzai Government to do more to tackle corruption. We believe that although the military component of what is happening is enormously important, a military solution alone will not succeed. There also needs to be a political solution involving reconciliation with those elements of the Taliban that are prepared to reject violence.
	Fundamentally, we need to see this through until it is safe for us to withdraw-that point has been made in many contributions this afternoon. If we withdraw before then, not only will the Taliban and al-Qaeda return to Afghanistan, making us much less safe, but we will provide the most enormous boost for terrorists and jihadists across the planet. That is why we are in Afghanistan, and that is why this is so important to our national interest. As has been demonstrated this afternoon, that view is widely shared in the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of Afghanistan.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Third Reading
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.- (The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), let me inform Members that, in line with the approach I have consistently taken when these particular Bills have been before the House, I propose that the two Bills on the Order Paper-the Canterbury City Council Bill and the Nottingham City Council Bill-be considered together on Third Reading, as they are still almost identical.

Julian Brazier: This Bill was first deposited in November 2007, and we have had three separate Second Readings, and the House has spent many hours deliberating on it, so I will say almost nothing about the original arguments, beyond stating that my community, and in particular Canterbury city, is one of the foremost tourist attractions in the country, and while that brings many benefits, it also brings the very considerable problem of congestion in our high street.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since 2007, a lot of water has passed under Westminster bridge, and that, in terms of pedlars, the Government have issued consultation and research, and have now come forward with draft legislative proposals contained in the latest consultation, which does not have to be concluded until the beginning of next month? Does he accept that the situation is now completely different from when the Bill was introduced, and that in the light of what the Government may be going to do, his Bill is premature?

Julian Brazier: In a word, no. The promoters of the Bill do not believe that we are close to Government legislation in this area.  [Interruption.] It appears to me that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), is nodding. Also, although I know that the Opposition Front-Bench team are sympathetic on this issue, I do not believe that it would be a high priority for an incoming Conservative Government. This is a specific problem for a few localities. As it is not a general problem around the country, it is inevitable that no central Government will give it a particularly high priority.
	The sad fact is that in a congested and popular city centre such as Canterbury's, which has narrow cobbled streets, the activities of people using peddling licences are playing a significant role in contributing to congestion. More importantly, their activities are undermining the position of the 13 traders who pay a great deal of money each year for their legitimate street licences and that of the many shops on our high street that are close to the economic edge in this recession.
	I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in the earlier debates, but I wish to address one particular matter. There are two differences between the Canterbury Bill and the Nottingham Bill, about which we will hear shortly. The more important of those relates to the issue of touting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) devoted a great deal of some of his earlier speeches. I made it clear then that I was sympathetic to his points about touting. The provisions are designed to address a difficult and unpleasant, but extremely narrow, point. However, as drafted, they would have potentially far-reaching consequences, and I would be very worried about what a future non-Conservative Administration, should we have the misfortunate to have one in Canterbury, could do with them. I therefore obtained an absolute assurance from the promoters of the Bill, Canterbury city council, that it will strike out the touting clause in another place.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that concession public. As he rightly says, we had an exchange on the Floor of the House about this matter-I believe it was on 29 October 2008-during which he offered me the opportunity to visit Canterbury to discuss it with the officers of his local council. That visit has not materialised, but may I ask him why the opportunity was not taken to make this concession, and thereby allow this amendment, when this Bill was before the Unopposed Bill Committee, because we would thus have been able to deal with the matter in this House?

Julian Brazier: I take full responsibility for that matter; the Bill went through rather speedily and I missed it at the Committee stage.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way briefly on that point?

Julian Brazier: Yes, but it is the last time I shall give way, because I have almost finished what I wish to say.

Peter Bone: This is an important point. As the transcript of the Unopposed Bill Committee proceedings shows, this question was brought up then and the representatives of Canterbury city council argued specifically against such an amendment. Have they changed their mind?

Julian Brazier: I have no idea whether they have changed their mind, but they have given me an absolute assurance, in writing, that this provision will be struck out in another place.
	Over the past two and a bit years, a great deal of time and energy has been expended in this Chamber on debating these two parallel Bills and, indeed, the other four that are further back in the pipeline. I do not think that further words from me will add anything to the debate. My local community in Canterbury is very anxious for this measure, which is supported by all parties on Canterbury city council, and I would be most grateful for the support of the House.

Kevin Brennan: I should point out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that if the Whip is nodding, it is not necessarily in assent to what he is saying. I say that because the Whip cannot get up to defend himself.

Julian Brazier: Let me make it clear that no discourtesy was intended and that I was just alluding to the fact.

Kevin Brennan: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is always courteous.
	The Government understand the desire of these local authorities to bolster their enforcement powers when faced with traders who seek to hide behind a pedlar's certificate as a means of frustrating the gathering of evidence on street trading offences. The House is aware that, prompted by a number of local authorities that seek the additional powers that these Bills include, the Government, as he mentioned, undertook research into the perceptions of, and application of, the current national and local regimes. We are now in the process of consulting on possible proposals for changes to the national regime.
	The ideas explored in the consultation included: whether there is a national need to extend enforcement powers for local authorities so that they can better tackle illegal street traders without unduly restricting legitimate pedlary; how more clarity can be achieved between the legitimate activities of certified pedlars and practices that seek to frustrate the enforcement of street-trading rules; how the pedlars regime might usefully be modernised to achieve a clearer fit with street-trading laws and to make the certification process more comprehensive, to provide better access to records of certificates and to help pedlars to go about their legitimate business where they are entitled to do so; the subject of guidance on the application of the current regime, which research found all parties would find useful as there is widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes legitimate pedlar activity and what constitutes illegal street trading; and how we can maintain the national nature of a genuine pedlar's permission to trade while meeting the valid concerns of some local authorities about being able to control the level of trading activity in relation to special events or, in particular, to areas where too much trading has an adverse effect. The consultation period ends on 12 February and we will publish the Government's response in due course.

Peter Bone: The Minister's speech was most helpful. He talked about what I believe should happen: we should have a national policy. The Government are moving speedily and correctly in that direction, and it is for this House to decide on a national policy. My objection in principle to these Bills is that to provide a private Bill for each council that wants one is a ridiculous way to proceed in this day and age.
	I am grateful to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who, quite rightly, feels passionately about the issue involved. I am aware of the important feelings that he has about that, and it is right that when we have private business people of the same political party should have differences of opinion on it. I have had representations from city councils, although I have not actually had them from Canterbury, so let me show their side of the coin. They say:
	"Problems include large groups of individuals selling goods such as balloons, flags, whistles etc from large, wheeled stalls. Most of those individuals usually claim to benefit from a pedlar's certificate. Their presence not only causes obstruction to pedestrians and projects a negative image of the area, but also results in complaints from legitimate street traders in the area who are subject to strict control by the local authority via conditions on their licence."
	I am sure that that is entirely the case in Canterbury, but my argument would be that this is a matter for Parliament as a whole to decide. We should have a national policy and then delegate down to local authorities the decision on whether they enact the provisions or not. I welcome the Government's position on this matter.

Philip Davies: Following on from that, does my hon. Friend not agree that across the total of six Bills, these two-the Canterbury City Council Bill and Nottingham City Council Bill-are probably the two most restrictive? Without the result of the Government's consultation, which we are still awaiting, and without their response to it, it is difficult to judge at this stage whether these Bills strike the balance that it would appear that everybody wants to see.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is quite correct. There would be a legitimate case for delaying this a little longer-until February-so that we can see where we are as regards the Government report. My issue is with the specific Bills and the procedure that has been used to bring them to Third Reading.
	This is the first time that I have spoken in a Third Reading debate on private business, and I have been doing some research. This information has been provided by the House of Commons and, in particular, the House of Commons Information Office's document on private Bills. I also looked at column 989 of the  Official Report on 29 October 2008, which was the Second Reading of the Canterbury City Council Bill. I spoke in that debate. Given that we are talking about this group of Bills, I also looked at the Second Reading debate for the other councils involved, which can be found in the  Official Report for 3 June 2009, from column 329.
	I also referred to the transcript of the Unopposed Bill Committee that took place on 8 July 2009. Rather bizarrely, the Committee is said to have been chaired by Sir Michael Lord, with Mr. Adrian Bailey, Gordon Banks, Peter Bottomley and Sir Robert Smith. That is how the transcript has been produced, I assume by  Hansard.
	I have concerns about how this Third Reading has been presented and dealt with. What should happen with a private Bill is that the initial, formal First Reading stage is the same as with-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to be of assistance to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). Whether he likes it or not, we are on Third Reading of this particular Bill. As in any Third Reading, he may speak about what is in the Bill, but not about the procedure affecting what happens before this stage or what happens to private Bills in general. We are where we are: there is a Bill before the House, and speeches on Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill.

Peter Bone: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. I was somewhat misguided by the House of Commons briefing, which says that
	"third reading debates on opposed private business have tended to be rather wide-ranging; Members who put down blocking motions may wish to discuss the merits of the particular bill or to allow more time for the promoters and petitioners against the bill to reach some reconciliation."
	I am apologising-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Exactly, and therefore my ruling is valid.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	There is a particular issue that one of my constituents has asked me to speak about in this Third Reading debate. People may ask why the Bill was not petitioned against. If that had happened, the procedure that I am not allowed to talk about would have been different. The Bill would have gone to an Opposed Bill Committee, and the scrutiny would have been somewhat different. In any case, however, it would have been impossible for me to be on either type of Committee, as their memberships are not selected as happens with normal Bills.
	I want to talk about the relationship that the economic situation and unemployment have with removing the right of pedlars to carry out their work in a particular city. Since the Second Reading debate, unemployment in both Nottingham and Canterbury-and, for that matter, in my town-has increased by more than 50 per cent. It seems to me that people who wish to leave the unemployment register and acquire gainful employment could do so by getting a pedlar's licence. They would have to go through certain checks, as such a licence is issued by the police.
	Such people would then be entitled to go and peddle across the country. In fact, that is the whole point of the pedlar's licence-it is not static. Licensed pedlars do not work from a shop on which they pay rates or rent; instead, they can go round the country-perhaps from door to door-or they may work in a city such as Canterbury, but it is a way for someone to get on the entrepreneurial ladder.
	As I have said many times in this House, unemployment in my area is now more than double what it was in 1997. In particular, it is 50 per cent. up since this Bill was last discussed, and that is the same for the other councils that we are looking at. It seems to me that restrictions placed on particular towns and cities will affect not only those citizens, but pedlars from all across the UK. Such restrictions affect any pedlar who applies for a certificate in Wellingborough, and might work his way round the country to Nottingham or Canterbury. I take the point that there is illegal rogue trading, but I contend that pedlars are not illegal or rogue. They go through the process of police certification. I am convinced that the vast majority act legally, do not sell counterfeit goods and do not remain in one place, which would break their licence as a pedlar. I accept that there are people who do that, but they are not pedlars.
	The unemployment levels are so high that we would be silly to choke off legitimate ways in which people can earn their living. In one constituency in Nottinghamshire, adult male unemployment is now 15.4 per cent., and in another it is 14.2 per cent. So choking off an opportunity for people to work seems wrong. That clearly was not considered on Second Reading because the facts of the economic situation were not known then. It certainly was not considered in the Unopposed Bill Committee. I have read the debate that took place in that Committee and, although the members worked hard and asked a lot of questions, they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that the petitioners would have had if they had had early enough notice that this private Bill was being introduced. That is why I believe that the other place will listen to the petitioners and have a better view of the matter.
	My main contention is that the Bill affects the economic situation of not only people in Nottingham and Canterbury but people across the country, including in my constituency. I know that several hon. Members wish to speak. I do not dispute the correct analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury; I think he is absolutely right. The way forward is as the Minister suggests. He made a helpful and clear statement.
	What is good about today's debate is that we have a chance to discuss business that, if approved, will become the law of the land. It seems to me very strange that private business tends to be nodded through without debate. I really wonder whether this procedure-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to repeat myself, as I suspect the hon. Member is starting to do in certain respects, but I must be clear. We are not debating the procedure for private Bills. That may be something that the House would be fascinated to discuss on a separate occasion or to refer to the Procedure Committee. This debate is on the content of the Bill.

Peter Bone: I probably made the mistake of not raising a point of order at the beginning of the debate because I do not think that this Third Reading debate is in order. That was a mistake, and it shows my lack of experience in this place.

Christopher Chope: People are in the mood for making abject apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just made one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is making one. Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the problems is that we are having this Third Reading debate without having had the benefit of a proper Committee stage; and that we would have had a Report stage if our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had moved his amendment in the Unopposed Bill Committee? That would have resulted in a Report stage and a more orderly process towards Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is entirely a procedural matter, and the hon. Gentleman leads me into the risk that I may have to make an abject apology to the House for having to repeat the guidance that I am trying to give. I therefore counsel the hon. Member for Wellingborough not to pursue that line.

Peter Bone: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I certainly would not do that.
	I have been asked by a constituent to come to the House and make that point about entrepreneurship and the level of unemployment, and that is the crux of my argument. He would certainly have liked to have petitioned Parliament on the issue, but he was not aware of the fact that the private business had been introduced.

Tony Lloyd: I rise to support the Bill that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has sponsored and the Nottingham City Council Bill. Owing to the pressures of high office, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is sitting beside me, is not in a position to put forward the case for the Nottingham Bill. However, I must begin not by making an abject apology. Instead, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that-please believe me-the nod from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East was a nod of approval towards the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury. There should be no ambiguity about that. My hon. Friend may not speak, but he can nod in approval.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful otherwise he might get his hon. Friend into even greater trouble.

Tony Lloyd: I had best adhere carefully to the strictures that you place upon me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow my hon. Friend if not to rest in peace at least to sit in peace.
	I shall make a few brief points. It is unnecessary to rehearse the arguments that were made on Second Reading, precisely because the Bills have not been amended since Second Reading. The House clearly established with very large majorities the principle of its support for the Canterbury City Council and Nottingham City Council Bills on that occasion, and it has done so on every occasion since. In that context, may I say gently to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that the idea that the House has not examined the matter and not given its approval is fallacious? The House voted in considerable strength. These private Bills did not slide through with marginal support unnoticed one afternoon; they were given very strong support in the House.

Peter Bone: My point was that when the Bills were debated and divided on, significantly fewer than half of all Members voted.

Tony Lloyd: This may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but even on occasions of Government business significantly fewer than half of all Members vote. We should not weigh the votes, except to say that on all occasions there have been significant votes clearly in favour of the Bills, and a small but lengthy measure of opposition to them. The Bills have had 16.5 hours of debate already, and that should establish the fact that they have had a good airing. Proponents and opponents have had a good opportunity to put their cases.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Lloyd: I am cautious, but I shall not be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why other city of Nottingham representatives, who might have been freer than his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) to express an opinion, are not present for the debate?

Tony Lloyd: It is because they have an amazing and accurate strength of belief in my capacity to advocate their case. That is what the answer amounts to. My powers of rhetoric are clearly well received by my Nottingham colleagues. As a former student at the university of Nottingham, perhaps I have some interest in that city.
	I wish to put a couple of brief points to the House. First, I want to deal with the Government's consultation. Like other supporters of these Bills, I strongly support the Government's steps in the direction of achieving a national structure. Indeed, I think that the position of those on all three Front Benches is that it would be better to have national legislation, but that does not yet exist, and it is likely to be some time away. That eventuality should not prevent the citizens of Canterbury, Nottingham and, indeed, other cities, from thinking that legitimate procedures still exist in this House to protect their interests. The consultation is very unlikely to produce legislation, certainly this side of a general election. Even if we look beyond that election and envisage a Labour Government returned to power with a strong majority, and even if my hon. Friend the Minister is still in the same ministerial role, although I think he is probably destined for much greater things, it is unlikely to be a priority in the early moments of the post-election period. That is why it is important for Canterbury and for Nottingham that this legislation moves forward in the House under procedures that are open and legitimate.
	My second point relates to the interesting comments by the hon. Member for Wellingborough about increases in unemployment. Of course, unemployment has gone up, including in cities such as my own. However, I assure him that the employment-destroying capacity of the bogus trader is a reality. That applies to legitimate businesses in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and the hon. Member for Canterbury. That point must be taken on board as part of the equation.
	I have never said, nor would I ever say, that every pedlar is a rogue; that is simply not the case. Neither would I want to say that every pedlar is, in some sense, of marginal economic or social value. The right to peddle is not put at risk in the six Bills, of which these two are the most restrictive, nor by the other Bills that will, I hope, come before the House on another occasion. The right of people to operate under a pedlar's licence will remain intact. However, the legislation places legitimate restrictions on pedlars who use, and on occasion abuse, their position to the detriment of the ordinary passing traffic in our cities. That is inimical to legitimate businesses that face unfair competition of a kind that we should not allow in situations where there is a local interest, even if it has not yet been translated into a national issue.
	I think that that is the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East would want to have put forward in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I want to put that case strongly on behalf of Members from across the House and many different parts of the country. I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East with the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury, which I strongly endorse. This is not a party political debate; in fact, the different political parties have, overwhelmingly, a common view. On that basis, I hope that we can proceed with the Third Reading of these Bills.

John Penrose: We have already had a wide range of contributions from my hon. Friends the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), the Minister, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), illustrating the fact that this is the latest movement in a multi-act drama.
	As has been ably explained, these Bills, and the associated Bills put forward by other local authorities around the country, have come before the House many times under many different stages of the parliamentary process. I expect that the others in the convoy will be with us in due course. There has been a great amount of debate, and I do not intend to detain the House for long by going over ground that has already been covered in some detail by Members on both sides of the House during those earlier stages.

Peter Bone: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) described what the position would be if Labour were returned with a majority, but would a Conservative Government pick this sensible legislation up and proceed with it as the Minister outlined?

John Penrose: I thank my hon. Friend for leading me nicely to my next point. However, I should mention briefly that I have a small local interest in this matter. My constituency, Weston-super-Mare has a carnival every year-it is a grand west country tradition-and a large number of pedlars arrive for the evening. They add to the streetscape and create a wonderful buzz around the town, but they create a great deal of ill-feeling among some of the carnival organisers, because they feel that the pedlars-some licensed, some not-take money out of the town that they might otherwise be able to give to good causes and charity. I must confess to that element of local interest.

Julian Brazier: Can my hon. Friend imagine what it must be like to operate in a city where that is going on not as a result of a carnival, but every single day from the middle of April through to the early autumn?

John Penrose: I completely take my hon. Friend's point. In fact, my local authority has examined whether it wishes to introduce a private Bill of the kind we are discussing. It has decided not to do so thus far because of the expense and difficulty, but in earlier rounds of debate, the House has discussed the fact that many local authorities that are similarly affected have considered introducing private Bills.
	That is one reason why other Conservative Members have said in previous versions of this debate that we support the idea of some kind of national approach. Clearly, the matter is not efficiently dealt with by multiple local authorities taking the private Bill route. That is not necessarily the most effective way of dealing with the matter, and some kind of national approach should be seriously considered. That was why we were delighted that the Government produced a consultation document-we are part way through the process at the moment. I am sure the Minister would not expect me to offer a legislative blank cheque: what we do depends first of all on the results of the consultation, and secondly on what proposals this Government or any future Conservative Government make. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is a good thing that the process has been started, because we need to uncover in more detail what people in different parts of the country feel about the matter.

Christopher Chope: Before my hon. Friend allows the impression to be given that all pedlars operate against the interests of charity, will he accept that one particular pedlar with whom I have been in contact, Frankie Fernando, has under his pedlar certificate raised significant sums of money for charity?

John Penrose: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's point. A number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have made the point that there are sharp and important distinctions to be made between legitimate pedlars, street traders and rogues. Those are distinct categories, and we need to continue to make the distinction. Of course, as he says, within those categories, there are people who make money for themselves and their families, and people who make money for a variety of worthy causes. He is quite right to make that point.

Philip Davies: rose-

John Penrose: I am trying to get to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, but I am happy to give way once more before I do so.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit of going for a national route following the consultation document that the Government produced, as opposed to this piecemeal approach, is that pedlars by nature are not a very powerful lobbying group? They are not well organised and do not have expensive lobbyists at their disposal, so legislation such as this Bill could go through without the voice of the pedlars being heard. Had it not been for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the other side of the argument would never have been heard in these debates.

John Penrose: I agree with my hon. Friend that it requires Members of Parliament such as him, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), to raise their voices and put both sides of the debate, which they have done ably. In fact, I believe that now my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has spoken, more hon. Members have spoken in opposition to the Bill than in favour. He is right to make that point, but he is doing down some of our colleagues who are doing a good job of making their arguments.
	To come back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, the Conservative party's view, as we have said on previous occasions, is that it is not sensible to make a party-political issue out of an individual local Bill. We are trying to ensure an entirely free vote for Conservative Members on individual Bills from local authorities-whether from Canterbury, Nottingham or anywhere else. We do think that it is sensible to start looking, as the Government have, at whether a national position on the issue can be reached. However, the point made from both sides of the House earlier-that no matter who wins the general election, it will be difficult to find parliamentary time to take through a Bill on this issue in the early stages of any Government's life-is true. Therefore it would be a mistake for me or any other shadow Minister or Minister to promise national legislation in the near future, and I would not wish to use that as an excuse to guide colleagues to vote in one way or the other on this Bill. I am trying to "park" that issue.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a two-stage process? First, the Government need to have a settled opinion on the changes that they would like to see made to the law. Secondly, they need to find the parliamentary time to implement those conclusions. I see the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who promoted a private Member's Bill on this issue, in his place. If the Government had a settled opinion, given a fair wind, it could be expressed in statute sooner than my hon. Friend thinks.

John Penrose: If my hon. Friend is volunteering to help the process along, he or anyone else who did well in the private Member's Bill ballot would find themselves with very many friends soon after the ballot results were published. He is right to describe the process in that way, and I am sure that it would expedite matters if that happened. Of course, we cannot tell this afternoon whether that will happen, but I completely agree that the first step must be for any Government to develop a considered position and work through the detailed and important issues of how to distinguish between rogues, street traders and pedlars, and how one governs and enforces the laws that might be introduced in each case.
	I hope that I have clarified the Conservative party's position on this and that we are not urging our colleagues to vote either way on these specific Bills, but to make their own personal decisions.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party has found the paper produced by Paul Bradford, from St. Chad's college, Durham university, helpful? It is about selling in the street and pedlary as an entry route to entrepreneurship.

John Penrose: I can confirm that my hon. Friend kindly handed me the paper about 10 minutes ago and I have made a determined effort to get through it. I have covered the letter, but I have not got beyond page 2 or 3 of the 10-page detailed addendum. Based on what I have read so far, it is tremendously helpful, although I am not sure that it is a complete statement or indeed the last word on the subject. It should certainly be taken into account by all sides, and it makes some of the same points about entry into employment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. I am sure that we will return to this issue when we consider some of the other Bills that are attempting to achieve the same ends in the near future.

Edward Davey: I rise to make a few brief remarks to confirm that the Liberal Democrats support the measure. The debate about the national framework will command wide support across the House. However, hon. Members have made the point that waiting for the framework might be like waiting for Godot. It is therefore important to press ahead with this measure not only for that reason, but because it could be used as a test, so that when the next Government, whomever they may be, get around to drafting legislation following the consultation, they will have an example of such legislation working in practice. They would then be able to build on that example and use it as best practice, or, if it did not work, to learn lessons from it.

Peter Bone: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the time that it would take for national legislation to be introduced, but has he considered what will happen if we pass this private Bill today and then find that the national legislation, when it comes, is significantly different? How would we reconcile the two?

Edward Davey: The national legislation could make the necessary reconciliation in the Act, so I do not see any problem there whatever. Indeed, a key point on which I hope to command support across the House, is that the national legislation, when it comes, should respect the needs of individual local authorities to legislate through byelaws in a way that suits their areas, towns and city centres. I would hope that a one-size-fits-all approach would not emerge. That is very important.
	We have heard about the differences between circumstances in Canterbury and in Weston-super-Mare. I can confirm that the situation in the town centre of Kingston, in my constituency, is probably very different from that in Canterbury or in Weston-super-Mare. In Kingston, there are regularly street traders and pedlars-probably not as regularly as in Canterbury, but on most weekends and some weekdays. It would be a welcome new freedom for the local authority to be able to decide whether to take action on this matter, as long as that ability was not killed by some overarching, over-prescriptive, over-bureaucratic national framework; it must be an enabling framework. That could be advantageous.
	In Kingston, we had the experiment of first business improvement district in the country. There are now many other BIDs, but Kingston First was the first. I sat on the Committee that considered the Government Bill that introduced BIDs. The resulting legislation has enabled, with a number of different local authorities going ahead with measures, other authorities to work out what is right for them. One size has not fitted all with the BID approach to local economic management and development, and neither should one size fit all with this type of measure. The success of those initiatives suggests that we must be as flexible as possible if we go down the national framework route.

Philip Davies: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about localism being broadly a good thing, but under the measures a pedlar's certificate would entitle the holder to act under its authority anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Given that the two Bills on which we are concentrating today differ from each other and from the other Bills that we will be considering later, it would be difficult for any pedlar who wished to use a certificate that he has obtained legitimately to do his work in different parts of the United Kingdom, because he would have to look through clauses such as those in the Bill to see what they could or could not do in each local area. Is that not a difficult thing to expect them to do?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is in grave danger of over-egging the pudding. Pedlars are, as he and his colleagues have argued, entrepreneurial by nature. I think that they are quite capable of finding out what is going on in different towns and city centres, and he is quite wrong to make that point. Some of his colleagues appear to accept the notion of a flexible national framework, and no doubt if that were implemented, there would be differences in different town centres under that approach. I do not see the force of his argument in practice or in relation to what is likely to be the legal reality.
	In conclusion, the work that has been put into the Bills by different city councils and the hon. Members who have sponsored and led on those Bills is to be commended. I hope that that work can act as a spur, a catalyst and an example for future legislation in this area.

Christopher Chope: For reasons that have been made clear on a number of occasions, I am not yet convinced of the merits of either Bill. I should like to cover a number of aspects of their contents, but first I wish to consider the European convention on human rights.
	In the explanatory memorandums to both the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills, there is a statement that in the view of the respective councils the provision of the Bills are
	"compatible with the Convention rights."
	You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that issue was referred to in the deliberations of the Unopposed Bill Committee that took place to examine these Bills and the Leeds City Council and Reading Borough Council Bills. There was one Committee for all those Bills. A representative of the solicitors Sharpe Pritchard, Mr. Alastair Lewis, appeared as agent for all four councils. Quite rightly and properly, he went into whether the Bills were compatible with the convention. He drew attention to the view taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was that it should be for the Unopposed Bill Committee to ensure that the Bills were compatible, as the councils had asserted on the front of them. He reported that the Minister had said that he was
	"satisfied that the Promoters have undertaken a full assessment of ECHR compatibility"
	and saw no reason to dispute their conclusions. However, he continued that the Minister had not seen the evidence that the promoters relied on to justify a restriction as being in the general interest. It was for that reason that he went into detail about how he felt the evidence justified the conclusion that it was in the general interest to introduce the restrictions in the Bills.
	As confirmed and conceded by the agent from Sharpe Pritchard, article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention is relevant because the economic benefit deriving from the licence, which in this case would include a pedlar's certificate,
	"has been held to be capable of constituting a possession within the meaning"
	of that article. He spelled out the three rules contained in the article: first, that the control of the use of property must be in accordance with the law; secondly, that it must be in accordance with the general interest; and thirdly-this is the issue that should cause us to pay careful attention-that it must be proportionate to the aim. We are talking about restrictions upon a person holding a pedlar's licence exercising their right throughout the length and breadth of the country.
	In setting out his view to the Unopposed Bill Committee members, Mr. Lewis said that-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that it is for the convenience of the House, or indeed appropriate, for the hon. Gentleman to rehearse something that has already been dealt with in Committee, and which presumably satisfied the Committee. If this was the issue at the heart of whether the Bills should be before the House, it was dealt with at an earlier stage. To repeat it now in the kind of detail that the hon. Gentleman seeks to repeat it is inappropriate.

Christopher Chope: I am not seeking to rehearse the arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you bear with me, I shall come to the Unopposed Bill Committee's conclusion that the provisions were a matter of judgment. I was going to draw that to the attention of hon. Members. Paragraph 86 of the Committee transcript states that a different level of proportionality will apply in the two Bills before us today from that applying in the other two Bills considered in the same Committee. Concessions had been made in the latter two Bills to reduce the ambit of the restriction on pedlars operating in city centres. In summary, it would be fair to suggest that although the Committee was clear that the Reading and Leeds Bills were proportionate, it left open the question of whether, in the absence of such amendments, the two Bills before us today satisfied the third criterion of proportionality.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is correct. However, this is the first opportunity that Members have had to comment on the Committee's deliberations, with whose conclusions I disagree. It is clear that the representative of the promoters even had doubts. He rightly said that the amendments agreed by Reading and Leeds do not affect pedlars' human rights, because they allow them to continue trading door to door, but he had clear reservations about the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter is now in the past. The Bills have been through Second Reading and Committee, and are now on Third Reading. As I ruled at the outset, it is in order to discuss the contents of the Bill, but the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) are trying to go beyond the grounds of what is proper on Third Reading.

Christopher Chope: I do not want to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My only question is whether the contents of the two Bills satisfy the European convention on human rights. Ultimately, however, that will be a matter for the courts, unless the House decides to prevent the Bills from reaching the statute book. Having said that, they have yet to go to the other place, and Members there might take an interest in them-after all, they took an interest in the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill and their compliance with the convention. I need not expand any further. I hope, however, that it is clear that that issue was one of the major matters debated in Committee.
	Clause 4 of the Canterbury Bill, which deals with the definition of street trading, is slightly different from that in the Nottingham Bill-if my memory serves me well. Clause 4(2) of the Canterbury Bill has only two paragraphs, whereas the same subsection in the Nottingham Bill has three. The extra paragraph refers to
	"the purchasing of or offering to purchase any ticket for gain or reward".
	On the face of it, that seems rather similar to the point about touting in clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill as currently drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) takes a particular interest in that issue because he serves on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport-what I would still describe as "recreational activities"-which has being doing a study into touting, so I would be interested to hear any contribution that he would like to make on those provisions.
	The main point that I would like to make about clause 4 of both Bills is that it extends the provisions not just to goods, but to services. Since the Bills were produced, however, a provision has been passed in the EU called the services directive. That directive is mentioned in the consultation document to which the Minister referred in his brief remarks. Page 29 of that document sets out a description of the services directive and a provisional conclusion, subject to consultation, drawn by the Government, which says:
	"In order to ensure proper implementation of the Services Directive on 31 December 2009"-
	in other words, the end of last month-
	"the UK and Scottish Governments intend to amend the Pedlars Act by removing service providers from its scope."
	However, it will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that under the provisions of clause 4 of both Bills, service providers are to be added to the scope of the relevant legislation. It is therefore reasonable to ask the question, when we are considering whether the Bills should proceed, whether the provisions of clause 4 are redundant or, even worse, incompatible with the services directive, which
	"requires member States to remove any authorisation schemes which might act as a deterrent or a barrier to service providers from other member States operating in the UK."
	The consultation document produced by the Minister's Department also says:
	"In the UK and Scottish Government's view the pedlar certification scheme amounts to an authorisation scheme which cannot easily be justified on the criteria set out in the Services Directive."
	The document continues:
	"To meet the deadline for implementation the Department has decided to remove pedlars who provide only services from the"
	pedlars regime, and says that
	"implementing legislation is due to come into force on 28 December 2009. After that date, pedlars of services only will no longer need a pedlar's certificate."
	As happens with any consultation paper, the Government have done a cost-benefit analysis into the extent to which the changes might impact upon pedlars, and have concluded:
	"we understand that those local authorities who apply street trading licensing to service providers are required to justify that those regimes operate within the requirements of the services directive. If they are unable to do so those authorisation schemes will need to be removed insofar as they apply to service providers."
	It would be helpful if the promoters of the Bills could explain how the changes proposed by clause 4 are compatible with the services directive, which I concede has come up over the horizon since the Bills were originally brought forward.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend invites me to intervene on him, on this one occasion I shall do so. He knows perfectly well that, were this measure to be confirmed, clause 4 would become redundant. That does not in any way, shape or form prove that the provision is incompatible with anything or harmful to anything. It would simply become redundant. That is the first conclusion that he reached, and he knows it perfectly well.

Christopher Chope: If I did know that, I think that I would have been immodest enough to have said so. I do not know it. I shall put a further point to my hon. Friend-perhaps rhetorically, as he might not wish to intervene on me again. If his interpretation is correct-and according to my understanding of the consultation paper-this amendment to the law has already been made. So perhaps the clause is redundant even now. We seem to have a piece of legislation before the House, including a provision in clause 4, that, on the admission of the sponsor of the Bill, is already incompatible with European Union law. That is bizarre. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to offer up an amendment for our consideration when the Bills reach the other place, if indeed that is their destination.

Julian Brazier: Don't hold your breath.

Christopher Chope: Obviously, I am not going to hold my breath, Mr. Deputy Speaker; otherwise, I might be deemed to be out of order.
	This short exchange on the application of the services directive has demonstrated that my hon. Friend actually has a lot more in-depth knowledge of these Bills than he has led us to believe. I hope that he will ensure that, before they reach the other place, they will be made compatible with the services directive, as it now seems to have been incorporated into United Kingdom law.
	I hope that we will also hear why the Nottingham City Council Bill includes a provision relating to
	"the purchasing of or offering to purchase any ticket for gain or reward",
	while clause 4 of the Canterbury City Council Bill does not contain any such provision. My hon. Friend has now said that clause 11 goes too far and that he will allow the matter to be withdrawn from the Bill after it has had its Third Reading in this place.

Philip Davies: rose-

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A private Bill needs to be advertised in the  London Gazette on or before 11 December each year, and all persons likely to be affected by it need to be notified. My contention is that the notification of all pedlars has not taken place and that we are therefore not in a position to continue with this Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite sure that the procedures of the House have been satisfied and that what we are doing today is perfectly well in order.

Christopher Chope: Before my hon. Friend raised that point of order, I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend has highlighted the point in clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill that relates to ticket touting, which is the bit that has been dropped from the Canterbury City Council Bill, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Is my hon. Friend aware that the Office of Fair Trading has made it perfectly clear that ticket touting operates in the best interests of the consumer? We should not therefore try to pass any Bill that tries to restrict the practice.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am sure that if these Bills had had a Report stage, an amendment along the lines he is suggesting-seeking to remove clause 2(b) from the Nottingham City Council Bill-would probably have received a good deal of support across the House. I know that the Select Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member commands great respect and his point is popular with people outside the House. Again, this problem is a consequence of the fact that we are having a Third Reading debate in which we may discuss only the contents of the Bill, and if we do not like those contents, our only effective option is to vote against the Bill as a whole. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in doing so in due course.
	Let me raise another issue. I shall come back to the issue of pedlars in clause 5 "in due course", as the Minister says. There is a lot of concern among pedlars about clause 6, which deals with seizure. Under the Canterbury City Council Bill as drafted,
	"if an authorised officer or a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed a relevant offence",
	he or the constable "may seize" and so on. The pedlars in contact with me say that having to establish only a reasonable ground for "suspecting" is not as strong as it should be. What we should really have to establish before we start going around seizing people's goods is a reasonable ground for "believing". The use of the word "suspecting" rather than "believing" in clause 6 makes the provisions in this and the Nottingham City Council Bill much more draconian than they would otherwise be.

Philip Davies: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Does he agree that, given that the consequences of seizure are dealt with in these Bills-there is a clause on the seizure of perishable items, for example-and that seized items have to be returned within 56 days, anybody who had had their goods taken off them unlawfully would have to go through the rigmarole and hassle of going to a county court to get some kind of compensation? Given the complications of people getting their goods back-if they get them back at all-and the processes they would have to go through to get any compensation, does my hon. Friend agree it is important that goods are not taken away from people willy-nilly at this stage?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. That is the concern. It would be fair to say that there has been a breakdown in trust between lawful pedlars, trading standards officers and licensed street traders in local authorities. There is a fear that the powers being taken in these private Bills will be used against street traders and pedlars in a way that will effectively force them out of business. If they have their goods seized, it will be impossible for them to carry on trading on that particular day. As my hon. Friend says, the provisions in clause 6 and subsequent clauses of the two Bills will make it difficult for them to get their goods back to enable them to carry on trading in future.

Philip Davies: To my mind, it is even worse than that, as it may well be that the pedlars concerned need to sell the goods in the first place in order to raise the money to buy other goods to continue trading. If they have to go through all this rigmarole before they get their goods back, it is difficult to see how they could continue in business.

Christopher Chope: That is absolutely right, and in common language we would call that harassment. Pedlars would be in such a vulnerable position that unreasonable officers would be able to harass them out of town-which, after all, is the motive of many local authorities in promoting their prejudice against lawful pedlars.
	There is another difference between the Nottingham and Canterbury Bills and some of the other Bills: the provisions relating to the seizure of perishable items. It has already been said that these two Bills are the most restrictive of any of the so-called pedlars' Bills. Clause 7 highlights the extent of those restrictions. Food cannot be sold under the auspices of a pedlar's licence, but other perishable items such as fresh flowers can be. If flowers were seized, they would be worthless and unsellable shortly afterwards. Although I am no expert on the length of survival of florists' flowers, I believe it is only a matter of a few days, and even then only if they are kept in the right conditions. Although the clause states:
	"The council or the police shall store any perishable item...at an appropriate temperature",
	it will not be as simple as that.

Peter Bone: Subsection (5) states that "any perishable item" will be
	"disposed of by the council"
	for "the best possible price". If the council were to secure the best possible price, I assume it would have to peddle such items again on the streets. Does that make any sense?

Christopher Chope: This is part of the problem with these two Bills. If a council seizes flowers and keeps them for 48 hours, after which there is an obligation on it to secure the best possible price, I doubt whether the price obtainable would be particularly high because of the condition the flowers would then be in. Pedlars have expressed such concerns to me.
	There is, perhaps, one good consequence of these Bills, however. At least pedlars-of whom, according to the latest Government information, there may be 4,000 in the country-are a lot better organised than they used to be. Indeed, the Government refer readers of their latest consultation paper to the pedlars' website for information. That resource is increasingly used by pedlars across the country. Some pedlars are concerned that the impact on them of clause 7 will be disproportionate.
	I shall not go through all the concerns that have been expressed, because some would be better dealt with in the form of amendments or the petitions that I understand a number of pedlars will bring against these Bills when they reach the other place. However, one issue raised on Second Reading with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was why the Canterbury Bill makes provision to allow police community support officers to have powers that are not available to them in other Bills that seek to control illegal street trading and pedlary.
	I receive a lot of representations from people saying that they are worried about the extent to which PCSOs seem to be able to go around acting as though they are policemen, but they are not policemen. The essence of the setting up of a system of PCSOs was that they should play a supportive role, rather than be substitute police officers. Many people would think that the powers for PCSOs set out in clause 18 go too far. It is regrettable that when this matter was raised on Second Reading we heard no answer from the promoters to the questions asked and that no reference was made to this in the Unopposed Bill Committee.
	My concerns are not limited to clause 5 of the two Bills, although it would be fair to say that that is where my main concerns are centred. Clause 5 in effect restricts the right of pedlars within the Canterbury city council area and the Nottingham city council area to carry on as lawful pedlars trading in the street and selling their wares to passers-by. That is a major restriction on the long-established freedoms and liberties of pedlars in this country.
	I was pleased to hear the Minister and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) conceding points that had not always been apparent in earlier stages of these debates in respect of lawful pedlars playing a legitimate role in this country. One of the important messages that emerged from the research that the Government commissioned, which was carried out by Durham university, is that pedlars in general command a lot of popular support. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who spoke from our Front Bench, described how pedlars add colour to the street scene during the fairs in Weston-super-Mare and are regarded as an asset by people engaging in the festivities. That is a common experience up and down the country and was, in a sense, a finding of fact by Durham university.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being extremely generous. In both Bills, clause 5 is identical and the last sentence includes the phrase
	"if the trading is carried out only by means of visits from house to house".
	In the other Bills, house-to-house trading is being allowed, but in these Bills it is not. Have I got that wrong? Will my hon. Friend clarify that point?

Christopher Chope: My understanding is that the effect of clause 5 in the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills is that pedlars would be able to operate only from house to house and not on the street.
	My hon. Friend will probably be aware of one of the findings of the Durham university research, which was that a very high proportion of people who sell house to house and purport to be pedlars are not lawful pedlars. There is an irony in all that, because although some of the Bills state that pedlars can carry on going from house to house, there is quite a lot of resistance from households, with good reason, to people arriving on their doorstep offering to sell them things. They are nervous about those people's credentials and whether they might pose a threat to them as occupiers. That is why, when we go canvassing at election times and at other times, we increasingly come across labels on people's doors saying that they do not want pedlars and hawkers and so on.
	At a time when there is more public resistance to house-to-house activity by pedlars but more willingness, in my experience, to accept the role of the pedlar in the general street scene, these two Bills are working in the opposite direction. They will allow pedlars to continue to operate from house to house, but not to operate in the street.
	On behalf of all the promoters of these Bills, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central-his council is the lead authority for these six Bills-

Peter Bone: I think that the figures in the report are that 69 per cent. of the working hours of a pedlar are spent in the town centres whereas only 29 per cent. are spent going from door to door.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. It shows the disproportionate impact on pedlars of their activities being restricted so they cannot operate in town centres. My earlier point took account of that, but I was also pointing out that an increasing number of people who sell from door to door are effectively found to be not authorised pedlars but rogue pedlars.
	In the letter from the leader of Manchester city council, Sir Richard Leese, and in an identical letter sent to different recipients by Sir Howard Bernstein, the chief executive of that council, in which they seek the support of colleagues and invite other local authorities to put pressure on their Members of Parliament to support not only the Manchester City Council Bill, which we are obviously not considering today, but the two Bills that we are discussing, they make the point that there is a "growing problem" of illegal street trading in their areas. The analysis attached to the letter states that problems include large groups of individuals
	"selling goods such as balloons, flags, whistles etc from large, wheeled stalls."
	The point that I have sought to make in these debates is that the problem has to do with the large wheeled stalls. If we say that it is not possible for pedlars to take such stalls into city centres, much of the mischief described in the letter from Manchester city council and other submissions would be addressed. Pedlars could still operate in town centres, but they could not use the large wheeled stalls that inevitably cause obstruction. I can understand the concerns about those stalls.
	The definition of pedlars includes hawkers, but history shows that they were covered by separate provisions. Hawkers rather than pedlars could be described as people who operate from large wheeled stalls, but the Bill places them all under the same umbrella.
	One way to deal with that would be to revert to the traditional understanding of what a pedlar is-namely, a person who carries the goods on his person. That is reflected in the consultation document that the Government have produced. It is more generous than the amendments to the Bills for Leeds and Reading that I have negotiated, in that it says that the equipment that pedlars take into town centres should be much restricted in size but not removed totally.
	In a sense, we are all on the same wavelength. I think the Minister agrees, and that is why it is especially regrettable that these Bills, even though they acknowledge that the main problem lies with the people who use large wheeled stalls, make no provision to help the traditional pedlar-the person on his own or with a very small receptacle-to continue to operate in city centres.

Peter Bone: What is my hon. Friend's view of pedlars who go to football matches and park their trolleys at the entrance of grounds on match days to sell rosettes? In my day people sold rattles, but now they probably sell Manchester United scarves. How would they be affected by these proposals? I am obviously thinking more about the Nottingham Bill, as that city has football grounds.

Christopher Chope: A lot of pedlars do not work full time but sell novelties that might be associated with the soccer culture that they take to grounds on match days. That is a perfectly legitimate activity, but I am not sure that those people need big stalls, as it should be possible for them to store their goods somewhere. An increasing number of professional clubs accommodate and license stalls at their grounds, to allow such goods to be purchased by punters.

Peter Bone: I do not think that I have made myself clear. I am not talking about people who are licensed to sell within grounds, where the cost of shirts and so on is quite high. I am talking about entrepreneurs who set up on match days only in the streets around grounds. They offer better value for money and I am worried that they might be caught by the legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) invoked proportionality in a different context. We are now getting into far more detail than is appropriate for a Third Reading debate.

Christopher Chope: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will try to be proportionate. It may be that the leader and chief executive of Manchester city council were out of order in writing to us in the terms that they did and went beyond the bounds of a Third Reading debate. However, it is worth putting it on record that they admitted that the problem was caused by large wheeled stalls and not pedlars carrying goods on their person.
	This Third Reading debate is an opportunity for us to see how a Bill fits into the national context. I was delighted to hear the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), reaffirm recently our commitment to encouraging entrepreneurs and promoting enterprise in order to strengthen the UK economy and our international competitiveness. It is clear that one pathway to enterprise open to every UK citizen of good character is to obtain a pedlar's certificate. A licensed pedlar can sell goods from town to town and house to house the length of breadth not just of England and Wales but of the whole UK. We need to look at the national context in considering whether it is reasonable and proportionate for two councils to disapply the freedoms that pedlars enjoy to operate in their local authority areas.
	To their credit, the Government have responded to the threat to enterprise from the proliferation of private Bills and the threat to good regulation posed by a whole lot of pieces of legislation that are different from each other sometimes in small particular but sometimes in significant particular. We are talking about 3,000 or 4,000 pedlars with certificates. As the report to which I have referred by Durham university says, the essence of a pedlar is not necessarily that he has a lot of passes in his GCSEs but that he has good interpersonal skills. So we are not necessarily talking about people who will be able to look at the detail of legislation to see how they can comply with it before they visit a particular town.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman no doubt makes an important point about the national context, but I seem to remember him in another context arguing that larger geographical entities should not take powers that can properly be exercised by smaller ones. This seems a good opportunity to follow that argument. This genuine policy was agreed by Nottingham city council in 2007. It thinks that there is a problem. It does not think that the Bill is designed to stop normal street peddling. Should we not just let the policy be changed and not prolong the agony?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman does not make that point for the first time; it has also been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. He said that this was what the councils had decided, so that should be the law. We are talking about the difference between being able to make byelaws and changing the impact of national freedoms. At the moment, under national legislation, pedlars have the freedom to operate under the auspices of a pedlar's certificate. If we intend to limit or remove that freedom, this House and the other place should quite rightly and properly consider the rationale for doing so. Indeed, as I said earlier, it is incumbent on us, and a requirement under the European convention on human rights, to examine whether the proposals are proportionate. It is no good just saying, "This appeals to Nottingham, therefore it shall be."
	I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has had the chance to read the proceedings of the Unopposed Bill Committee, but, if so, he may agree with my assessment that the argument of the promoters' agents reached its weakest point when they tried to justify the different approach taken in relation to Nottingham and Canterbury compared with the provisions relating to Leeds and Reading. The argument from Nottingham, which the hon. Gentleman has summed up, was basically, "We're in Nottingham; we think this is best for us; so be it." However, the people from Leeds and Reading accepted the argument about proportionality, and they did not want to prevent lawful pedlars who trade goods on their person from continuing to operate in their town centres.

Peter Bone: Is that not the crux of the way in which this Third Reading debate and all private business should work? My understanding is that the promoters should negotiate with Members who have concerns to see whether a compromise can be reached. That has not happened on this Third Reading with these councils.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems fixated on procedural matters, and I have ruled on that.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Returning to the point about proportionality and the national context, I think that there is a reasonable concern on the part of the pedlar community that it has not obtained a reasonable deal from Nottingham and Canterbury; and that is why I shall certainly oppose these Bills. Piecemeal legislation, which we are engaged in producing, is undesirable in principle. If we are going to restrict or change the rights, responsibilities and definition of pedlars and introduce different arrangements for issuing licences in order to test whether the requirements of good character have been satisfied and so on, it is sensible and prudent that we do so in a national context. They are all issues that have been raised in the Government's current consultation paper.
	I should like the number of pedlars operating in this country to increase significantly, and that may be a by-product of our series of debates. I should like Jobcentre Plus advisers to suggest to people that, while looking for work, they might obtain a pedlar's certificate for £12.25 and trust their luck in the real world of trying to become a retailer. That activity is not necessarily suited to everybody, but in my submission it is suited to many more people than the 4,000 who are engaged in it.
	We in this House should not send out an ambivalent message. Some say that pedlars are equivalent to rogue traders-admittedly, an extreme view, but one that some of the promoters of these Bills have articulated; and others of us say that pedlars are wonderful entrepreneurs who engage in the enterprise society. If we send out mixed messages, it will be that much more difficult to encourage people to go into pedlary as a profession. I say "profession" advisedly, because, as was mentioned at the very beginning of these debates, Marks and Spencer would not exist had it not been for the fact that it was founded by somebody who learned his trade as a pedlar.
	We have to look at this in the national context, because an aspect that has become highly relevant since we first started debating these Bills is the significant rise in unemployment. Like me, the Minister will have regularly received people at his surgeries saying, "I've got all these qualifications and I'm eager to work", then, as an aside, "A lot of people aren't interested in getting a job, but I'm not one of those-I want to get a job." Other countries, such as Germany, have systems for encouraging people to engage in self-employment-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I believed this to be the hon. Gentleman's peroration, I would be prepared to reckon that it was in order, but I am not convinced that that is the case. He is venturing into territory that would be a legitimate basis for a debate at another time and in another place, but not on the Third Reading of these Bills.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; perhaps because I am a little hoarse my intonation is inadequate in letting you know whether this is my peroration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raises another matter. If he is suffering from sickness, there is a very easy way of relieving that.

Christopher Chope: Let it never be said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not have some good humour in this House during these debates. Looking at the clock and seeing that I have been on my feet for some 57 minutes, I suppose that it is inevitable that I will soon be coming to the conclusion of my remarks; as people say, all good things must come to an end.

Peter Bone: Could my hon. Friend advise the House on the argument about pedlary being an entry route to entrepreneurship? If that is to be economically viable, pedlary must operate anywhere in the United Kingdom, but that will not be the case if we pass these Bills on Third Reading.

Christopher Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	Addressing the House during this debate has been a frustrating exercise given that so much relevant material has been produced over the past 18 months. The most recent consultation paper extends to some 89 pages, the Durham university report extended to well over 100 pages, and lots of other material has been produced besides. That tells me that this is an important subject to which we cannot do justice in a Third Reading debate when many of us would like to be able to focus attention on particular amendments or groups of amendments.
	Having said that, I take a degree of satisfaction from the fact that if we had never started objecting to these Bills and raising these issues in debate, we would never have had the Durham university report commissioned by the Government, the Government's response to that report and preliminary surveys, or the Government's latest consultation, which, I hope, provides a blueprint for the future. I am sure that people will want to contribute representations to that before the closing date. As a result, although we do not have any concessions on Nottingham and Canterbury in relation to clause 5, we have been able to obtain by agreement concessions in relation to two of the other Bills, and concessions forced on two other councils as a result of the actions of the Opposed Bill Committee.
	Although I cannot find any reason to think that I have made any progress in relation to the Nottingham City Council Bill, I feel that by persuading my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury to introduce an amendment to remove clause 11 from the Canterbury City Council Bill, which I describe as his Bill, we have achieved something, and that the exercise in which we have been engaged has not been completely worthless.

Philip Davies: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), without whose herculean efforts the voice of pedlars would never have been heard in this House? No matter which side of the fence hon. Members are on in this debate or how they might vote if the matter is pressed to a Division, I am sure they agree that he has done a tremendous job of bringing the legitimate concerns that many people have about these Bills to the House.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who does what he always does, which is do what he genuinely believes is in the best interests of the people of Canterbury. He should be commended on that. The same goes for the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is doing what he believes is in the best interests of his city and his constituents. I am sure he would agree that his case was ably made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) in his contribution.
	I am concerned about the Bills for a number of reasons, which I shall go through with reference to various clauses. I am particularly concerned about clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill. Whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has agreed with his council to make the concession on ticket touting-as he would accept, the measure slightly muddied the waters of the overall debate-a measure on ticket touting is still in clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill. That is most unfortunate. I hope that Nottingham city council will reflect, as my hon. Friend and his council did, on whether it is worth pursuing that measure.
	I was struck by my hon. Friend's remarks on clause 4 when he spoke of its compatibility with the services directive. I am not one to stand up in Parliament and say that the House should concern itself with ensuring that its legislation meets the approval of the European Union-indeed, as many people know, I would much prefer to be out of the wretched European Union altogether-but we are where we are.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support the in-out referendum supported by the Liberal Democrat party? I believe that that is now the only referendum supported by any of the major political parties.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That really is not a very helpful intervention at this stage.

Philip Davies: I regret giving way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to resist the temptation in future should he catch my eye.
	We are where we are on European legislation-unfortunately-and it is perfectly clear that any legislation that the House passes today must meet the services directive. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made a compelling case, which I did not hear anyone deny, that the ticket touting aspect of the Bill does not meet the requirements of the services directive. I do not see how the House can pass legislation that we know, in our heart of hearts, cannot be maintained, justified and sustained in a court of law. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. That is one very deep concern I have about clause 4. I was not aware of the problem before, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the House aware of it.
	I am particularly concerned with clause 4 of the Nottingham City Council Bill, which clearly states that it would deny people the chance of
	"purchasing...or offering to purchase any ticket for gain or reward".
	Why on earth Nottingham city council has taken it upon itself to determine the law relating to ticket touting in its Bill is beyond me. This ill-considered-in fact, barely considered-provision would drive a coach and horses through the law on ticket touting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch generously mentioned in his speech, I am a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee which had an inquiry into the merits of ticket touting only last year. We took huge swathes of evidence from consumers, people involved in the industry and ticket touts themselves-including those who work on street corners and those with websites-as well as the Office of Fair Trading, which has made it clear that it believes that touting acts in the best interests of consumers and it has no reason to want to try to ban it. In fact, there have been very few cases in which anybody trying to restrict the selling on of tickets has taken a case to court, because such cases are very flimsy and would not be allowed. However, Nottingham city council has decided to put the subject in the middle of clause 4 of its Bill.
	The touting provision could lead to a ridiculous situation for someone who bought a ticket for a large event in Nottingham. I am aware that Nottingham Forest and Notts County are not as well supported as they were in their heyday a few years ago, but the latter are back on the way up, and the former are doing better than they were-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far when he starts to discuss the performance of football clubs, however interested he is in that issue.

Philip Davies: I do not wish to bore you or the House Madam Deputy Speaker with the recent performance of the Nottingham football teams, so I shall move to the point that I was trying to make.

Christopher Chope: Is it right to say that the value of tickets for football matches is likely to depend on the success or otherwise of the team concerned?

Philip Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The value is determined by the number of people who wish to attend, and some teams attract more spectators when they are not doing so well than others. Football is not perhaps the best example, because ticket touting is not allowed. However, there are some big stadiums in Nottingham that might host some big events, such as pop concerts, that see great demand for tickets. People who buy a ticket may not be able to attend, perhaps for work reasons. They will have shelled out money for that ticket and so, understandably, they wish to sell it to someone who can go. There is nothing wrong with that; it happens all the time and it is a legitimate activity. However, under Nottingham city council's Bill, anyone in that situation would not be allowed to sell on their ticket to someone who wished to pay above the odds for that ticket, even though the person selling wanted to sell and the person buying wanted to buy at that price. That is why the Select Committee concluded that a secondary market in tickets was legitimate. Why would we wish to pass a Bill in which Nottingham city council decided unilaterally to opt out of certain important national laws?

Peter Bone: I am slightly confused, because page 18 of the transcripts of the Unopposed Bill Committee says that both the Canterbury and Nottingham Bills deal with tickets, although my hon. Friend says that it is just the Nottingham Bill.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is partly right. The Canterbury Bill includes the restriction on selling tickets on the secondary market, but our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has agreed, in discussions with his council, and has made it public that even though that restriction is in the Bill, the council will strike it out, so it will not apply in Canterbury. That is a helpful development, because it slightly muddied the waters. However, although Canterbury council has agreed to do that, Nottingham has not. If we pass the Nottingham Bill as it stands, it will deal not only with the issue of pedlars, which may or may not be a problem that Nottingham wishes to deal with, but with ticket touting and the selling of tickets on the secondary market in Nottingham city.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend refers to the provisions in clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill. He will be aware that on 29 October 2008-at column 996-the then Minister responsible said that the Government "would be interested in" discussions on a possible amendment to clause 11. Obviously, that is no longer necessary, because we have been told by our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that clause 11 is going to be removed. Surely, however, we should expect the Minister to be interested in discussions on whether the provisions of this part of the Nottingham City Council Bill should be amended as well.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right. We have got ourselves into a ridiculous situation. The Government are helpfully putting out a consultation to see whether national legislation on pedlars could be introduced, but we are here making these decisions about particular cities before we have even had the responses to the consultation or had the Government's response. We do not really know the merits of the arguments on either side, but we are being asked to pass legislation that will affect those areas.
	The same point applies to the issue of ticket touting in Nottingham. The Government have been carrying out a consultation on selling tickets on the secondary market, but they have yet to bring forward their proposals on the matter, if they wish to make any. It seems absurd to put the cart before the horse in relation to pedlars, without knowing what the Government's response on that issue is, and absurd to do exactly the same thing on ticket touting.
	I want to make another point about ticket touting. Everyone understands that selling tickets on the secondary market benefits those who sell the tickets, but I want to make it abundantly clear that the system works just as well for people who purchase tickets. Someone who wishes to go to an over-subscribed event, but who does not know when the tickets will come on sale, whether they will be able to go or whether their work will give them the time off, will have to resist the temptation to buy a ticket. They will not be able to guarantee that they can go. Many organisers do not allow refunds; that is one of the issues involved. If that person later finds that they can go to the event, but it is sold out, the practice of ticket touting gives them the one opportunity they have to purchase a ticket. They might have to pay over the odds for that ticket, but that is their choice. If they do not want to pay that amount of money, nobody forces them to do so. Ticket touting gives them the opportunity to make that decision, rather than it being taken out of their hands.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that activity is often engaged in by Governments, particularly their diplomatic corps? If a guest to the country expresses an interest in going to an event for which tickets were not bought in advance, the corps will find tickets in order to indulge the guest and to promote diplomacy.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may or may not be right about that. I am not particularly well up on the procurement activities of the diplomatic service when it comes to tickets for events. He may know more than I do. I am making the case that ticket touting and a secondary market in tickets are in the best interests of consumers on both sides of the fence. Other people may take a different view, but I am passionately against the Bills because they drive a coach and horses through the principle of ticket touting.
	A more general point is that whatever people's view about the desirability or otherwise of ticket touting and selling, it would surely be nonsensical to have a different law relating to Nottingham from those that apply in any other part of the country. It would bring laws passed in this House into utter contempt if, after the House had expressed an opinion on whether something was a good thing that acted in the interests of consumers, one particular city decided to do something completely different on a matter of national importance.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but on this particular issue he has perhaps given the impression that touting benefits only rich people who pay over the odds for tickets. Quite often there is an oversupply of tickets and people can buy them at a discount, which enables them to go to events that they would not normally be able to afford to go to.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is clearly right, but that probably does not really apply to these Bills, which, to be fair, are intended to stop such activity only when a ticket is being purchased or offered for purchase "for gain or reward". My understanding is that if somebody were trying to sell a ticket at below the price they paid for it, they would not be trying to sell it for gain or reward.

Peter Bone: I did not make myself clear. What happens is that the tout buys the ticket at a discount from somebody who is not going. He than has to sell it on, because he cannot sit on it, so often he will take a loss because he wants to get rid of it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have explored the issue of ticket touting for quite some time, and I think the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has made his point. Perhaps he would like to move on to some other aspects of the Bill.

Philip Davies: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could go on at length about ticket touting, because it is a subject about which I feel strongly, but I will certainly accept your ruling and move on.
	I turn to clause 5 in both Bills, about which I have particular concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch indicated, at the moment pedlars obtain a certificate from the police that entitles them to act under its authority anywhere in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for a period of one year. After that time they need to renew it and we start all over again. The problem with the clause is that all people who wish to take part in the activity in question will have to be licensed by the consent of the council if they wish to carry on street trading, in order to be subject to the controls in schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
	The whole tenor of these Bills is, if not to harass pedlars, as my hon. Friend said, certainly to make it abundantly clear that they are not welcome in the cities in question and to move them on. My concern is that even though someone may have a perfectly valid pedlar's certificate that has been granted by the police, because they will now have to be given certificates by the local council and have the council's consent to operate, it will be made abundantly clear to them that they are not wanted. The Bills might go through the charade of laying down rules and regulations to make pedlars know where they stand, but I fear that councils will use clause 5 in particular to make it clear that they do not want pedlars and have no desire to give them a certificate, that they will not be licensed and that they should move on. The tenor of the Bill is rather sinister in that respect, because everything in it is designed to make life as uncomfortable as possible for pedlars, even when they are not behaving in a manner that is of any concern to anyone and when they are just going about their legitimate business. We should not support legislation with such an edge to it.

Christopher Chope: Is not the essence of a pedlar that they are not likely to settle, or trade, in one area? They will wish to pursue their trade in different towns up and down the country at different times of the year and to have that flexibility. They could not reasonably be expected to apply for a street trading licence each time they visit a particular town. Many such street trading licences are available only to those who want to have a stall on a regular basis.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. I am a fan of localism for many things, but in this case, where people, by definition of their trade, wish to travel around different parts of the country, plying their trade wherever they think they have the best advantage at that time, it is ridiculous to have separate Bills with separate powers and requirements, or to expect a pedlar to know the ins and outs of what applies in different towns. To be honest, that is unrealistic and unfair.
	If anybody thinks it reasonable for pedlars to have to abide by different rules in different places, and to know where to go for their local authority licence and which council it applies to, I invite them-with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who has become a world-leading authority on the issue-to tell me the difference between each regulation, applying under the different Bills, in different towns. I suspect that those here, debating this legislation, could not give an accurate appraisal of the exact differences between towns. So how on earth do we expect pedlars, who are merely trying to go about their everyday business, to know the ins and outs of every single difference? It is beyond me.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Is he aware that the mean difference travelled per day by a pedlar is 95 miles, that the median is 66 miles and that on average a pedlar visits 25 cities a year? How could the average pedlar know which regulations apply in which part of the country?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. He makes the case perfectly. It is unfair to place such burdens on pedlars, and they cannot be expected to know all the nuances of the regulations in different towns.

Christopher Chope: Can that point be reinforced by the fact that the Durham university research was carried out not with individual pedlars across the country, but using so-called snowball sampling? The only way of contacting pedlars collectively was to contact one and rely on that pedlar to contact others and so on-like a snowball.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. The other related point is that, when the Bills first came before the House, we did not have things such as the Durham university research to guide us. Things have moved on considerably. Actually, the more that we have learned about this particular industry, as time has passed, the less of a case has been made for the Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made a point about the distances that people travel. We are always trying to find ways of tackling obesity, so I would have thought that we would be trying to encourage, rather than curtail, that sort of exercise among the public.
	I wish to talk about the clauses dealing with the seizure of goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made a good point that articles can be seized when a person is reasonably suspected of committing an offence, as opposed to when they are reasonably believed to have committed an offence. That is a very soft test. He feared, as I do, that local authorities could use that rather soft test to reinforce their hassling of such people and make them aware that they do not want them in their city at all. That was a very good point; however, I am particularly concerned about what happens under the clauses following those provisions after someone's goods have been seized.
	The Bills allow perishable items to be seized, yet clause 8 of both Bills says that seized items would have to be returned
	"at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date of seizure,"
	if
	"no proceedings have been instituted".
	Fifty-six days is an awfully long time for someone to go without goods that have been taken from them unfairly and without good reason. Two things flow from that. First, perishable goods are of absolutely no use to anybody after 56 days and could not be sold on. However, even where goods are not perishable, a lot can happen in 56 days. Earlier speakers referred to some of the things that people sell. They could include topical things or things that, although not perishable, have a short shelf life, owing to public demand being based on events. Returning such goods to someone after 56 days, when there is no longer any market for them, is of absolutely no use to anyone.

Peter Bone: I want to take my hon. Friend back a few paragraphs in his speech. We have established that, under clause 7(4) of the Bills, a pedlar can claim back perishable goods within 48 hours. However, 48 hours would make some perishable goods, such as flowers, pretty much useless.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, clause 7 says that perishable items that are seized may be disposed of within 48 hours. His interpretation of "disposed of" might be different from mine-we could argue the toss about that and about whether it involves returning the goods, which is a different matter-but I will let people make up their own minds about that. My point is that returning non-perishable goods after 56 days is equally of no use to the people concerned, in many cases because of the nature of the goods being sold.
	However, if things are taken unfairly and then returned, or not as the case may be, or if they have been disposed of in some other way, and the pedlar, quite legitimately, wants compensation, clause 10 of the Nottingham City Council Bill-a similar provision applies in the Canterbury City Council Bill-provides for compensation to be paid to anyone who had a legal interest in them at the time of their seizure, where that seizure was unlawful. That is all very well, but there are two sides to that. First, any compensation paid would presumably be based on the cost price of the goods concerned-that is, the cost at which the pedlar bought them, not the price at which they intended to sell them. In real terms, therefore, the pedlar will be at a loss, because he would have realised more money for those goods than the amount by which he will be compensated. However, in order to gain such compensation under the Bills, the pedlar is also expected to go to the county court.
	Given that we are talking about somebody who has had their assets taken from them-often assets that they need to make a living-and given that they perhaps could not afford to reinvest in any replacement goods, because the income that they had expected to derive from selling the original goods has not come in, that person might have been without an income for 56 days. Expecting them then to pay the costs of going to court to try to recover any compensation seems wholly unrealistic and, to use a term that has been used many times in this debate, disproportionate.

Christopher Chope: Is it not even worse than that, because, in order to get compensation, someone would have to establish that the person who had seized the goods did not have a reasonable suspicion that an offence was being committed? Case law shows that the test of reasonable suspicion is less than that required to establish a prima facie case.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be wholly unfair to impose these restrictions and potential costs not only on pedlars but on anyone.

Peter Bone: Much of my hon. Friend's speech has concentrated on pedlars and on how they will be done down by the Bill, but will not consumers also lose out if they do not have the opportunity to buy from pedlars?

Philip Davies: That is a good point. Pedlars can make a living only if people are prepared to buy their products. Presumably, the fact that people want to buy those products at the price at which they are being offered shows that the pedlars are, by definition, providing a useful service to the local community. If they were not doing so, they would not sell anything and, presumably, they would not stay in that place very long. My hon. Friend is right: by definition, these people are providing a very good service in the local community.
	I want to make some progress, so I shall now move on to clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Nottingham City Council Bill, which relate to fixed penalty notices. I am not particularly comfortable with extending the powers of council officers to serve such notices whenever they see fit. This is not a good way to make and apply law, and we should hesitate before passing Bills that extend such powers to local authorities.
	Clause 13 provides that the council must fix the level of the penalties, which will, to a certain extent, provide it with a blank cheque. Clause 14, however, provides the Secretary of State with reserve powers to reduce the level of a fixed penalty if he considers it excessive. The Bill seems to be telling the local authority that it can set the level but, if the Government think it excessive, they will change it.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a valid point; I had not thought of that before. However, the Bills set out specific provisions for each council. They have no national application, so why cannot the fixed penalty rate be specified in each Bill?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. If one clause allows the council to set a fixed penalty at a level that it deems reasonable, and the following clause says that the Secretary of State has the power to reduce it if he considers it excessive, we seem already to be in a position to set the level ourselves. Presumably, if the Secretary of State is going to judge whether the level is excessive, he will have to have an idea of what an appropriate level would be. We could therefore short-circuit the system by setting a specific amount in the Bills. Will the Minister enlighten us as to what the Government would consider excessive? We would then know where we stood, which would be helpful. Without that, I fear that local authorities will set excessive fixed penalty amounts and that we will give them a blank cheque to do so.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that the biggest mischief is the trigger point for establishing the fixed penalty notice? The requirement under clause 12 of the Canterbury City Council Bill is that
	"an authorised officer, constable or... a community support officer finds a person who he has reason to believe has... committed... a relevant offence".
	It does not say that the officer has to have reasonable grounds, which would be a higher threshold, as he just needs "reason to believe". Even if the reason were mistaken, the officer would still be entitled to impose a fixed penalty notice under the Bill.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is another unfair element of the Bill. Of course, if someone reserves the right not to pay the fixed penalty notice, they would presumably find themselves in court and it would be for the court to decide whether or not they should have to pay. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that that creates a big financial risk for the pedlar concerned, who has to take a gamble-it could be quite a costly gamble in many cases-where he feels that he has done nothing wrong yet has been served with this fixed penalty notice. I suspect that in many cases even people who feel that they have been badly done by would feel obliged to pay the fixed penalty notice because of fear about a much bigger penalty further down the line. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these notices could be given out in a far too willy-nilly way for my liking. This legislation, which we are on the verge of passing today, will allow the authorities to hand out these fixed penalty notices willy-nilly-in a way that I think most people would consider unreasonable.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend would accept that it would be an exaggeration to say that it is equivalent to "your money or your life", but what is being said and what will effectively happen in practice if the provisions come into law is that pedlars will be faced with a choice of either paying the fixed penalty notice or facing the forfeiture of their goods.

Philip Davies: Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a Hobson's choice. It might not be "your money or your life", but it could easily be "your money or your livelihood". My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that issue.
	Further clauses about which we should at least raise an eyebrow relate to the accounting and application of fixed penalty receipts. It looks as if in respect of the Nottingham City Council Bill there is slavering at the mouth at the prospect of what the council may do with any surplus in the accounts raised from the application of these fixed penalty receipts. If we are talking about excessive or otherwise figures, any surplus in the accounts raised by these particular fixed penalties must, by definition, be excessive because they go over and above what is required in order to administer the scheme. In one clause we are being asked to support the council in providing a level of fixed penalty that is reasonable for administering the street trading regime, yet a later clause talks about what might happen if there is any surplus in these accounts, which does not fill me with a great deal of confidence.

Peter Bone: On that last point, whatever we think about the individual Bills, the Nottingham City Council Bill, with all this talk of
	"surplus... applied to purposes connected with the improvement of the amenity of the city or any part of the city"
	seems to be being used to raise money for the council rather than to regulate pedlars. It seems to be a money-raising exercise.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend may be right or may be wrong. It is difficult to know at this stage the main motivation behind these provisions, but he raises a very good point. I fear that the powers given to local authorities by these Bills will inevitably lead to some people on the council using them as a money-raising exercise, perhaps to plug the financial hole that will no doubt be left in local government because the Government are spent up and there is no money in the kitty for the future. I worry about the full implications of that.
	In summary, these two Bills are flawed on many levels. I do not doubt the honourable intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, as they are clearly trying to do what is best for their local areas, but we must also consider the bigger picture of national law. Whatever aspect of the Bills that Members may be unhappy or nervous about-pedlars or ticket touting, for example-given that the Government have consultations under way on all these matters with responses from both sides of the argument, which they are considering very thoroughly, it would be premature to pass legislation in this way at this stage.
	When legislation passes through the House, many organisations employ expensive lobbyists and have powerful groups to argue on their behalf. Pedlars are a disparate group by definition, and they probably do not have the resources to employ expensive lobbyists to argue on their behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done a tremendous job in arguing their point of view, but even with that, and with the reports and the research he has shared with us, I fear we are in danger of passing legislation without fully understanding its implications for pedlars.

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for those very generous comments. There is another point: a disproportionate cost burden falls on the pedlars and the big councils. If councils were to reveal exactly how much money they had spent on funding Sharpe Pritchard and its advisers, their council tax payers might take the view that they were mistaken in putting so much emphasis on promoting these Bills.

Philip Davies: I think my hon. Friend is right. It is for the people in those areas to determine whether their authorities have spent too much time and money on all of this, but although they may have done so, my main concern is that these Bills are misguided. Considerable damage could be done to people trying to go about their legitimate business of selling goods for the benefit of their local community. We should think very carefully before passing, in a flash, legislation that could have very serious consequences for many people who are trying to do their best and to raise some much needed money for their households.

Julian Brazier: Our discussion has been wide-ranging-and rather long for a Third Reading debate. I urge the House to support the Third Reading of both these Bills.

Tony Lloyd: I wish to move the Nottingham City Council Bill formally, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We will make a decision on the Canterbury Bill first.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 11.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time and passed.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Third Reading.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.- (Tony Lloyd.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 10.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time and passed.

PETITION
	 — 
	Sri Lanka

Paul Goodman: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 227 of my constituents in Wycombe.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of constituents of Mr Paul Goodman MP for Wycombe and others,
	Declares that following the end of hostilities in Sri Lanka as announced by President Mahinda Rajapakse, more than 280,000 Tamil civilians, including at least 50,000 children, remain detained indefinitely in cramped, squalid military run camps in the north of the island in breach of international law; further declares that there is a severe lack of medical and humanitarian aid for the needs of these wounded malnourished and severely traumatised war victims; further declares that with the current flooding, spread of diseases and the onset of the Monsoon rains the conditions in these already dilapidated camps will worsen drastically resulting in further deaths; further declares that the detained Tamil people are being held against their will, without any freedom of movement, with the intention of making these camps permanent; further declares that the traditional lands of these people are being colonised and illegally occupied by the armed forces; further declares that it is suspected that thousands of Tamils who are not accounted for are being detained incommunicado by the Sri Lankan armed forces; further declares that the perpetrators of war crimes and breaches of international law in Sri Lanka remain free from prosecution.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to press for the implementation of the following: the United Nations, International Red Cross and voluntary agencies must be given full access to care for and protect the civilians in the camps, and then help them to return to their traditional homeland in the north and east; a list of all those still alive and in custody should be published, so that families can stop searching for loved ones who are dead; any who continue to be detained as alleged LTTE combatants must be treated in accordance with the provisions of international law, and urgently given access to legal representation; accountability processes must be established to ensure that international aid is not diverted to purposes other than those for which it was given; UN monitors must be given free access to all parts of the island; there must be a full UN investigation into war crimes committed during the war.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000709]

ANDREW SYMEOU

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Watts.)

Joan Ryan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to bring the continuing incarceration of my constituent, Mr. Andrew Symeou, to the attention of the House and of the Minister for Europe.
	As the Minister will know, Andrew, a 21-year-old man, has now been detained in Greece for nearly six months. His ordeal, however, began more than 18 months ago when the arrest warrant was first issued. Since then, I have been working closely with Andrew and his family. In that time, I have raised the issue with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers. I have led a delegation to the Greek embassy and made representations to Ministers in Athens, and I am in frequent contact with consular staff in Greece. Yet Andrew still languishes in a prison that most international observers agree is one of the worst in Europe, denied bail and left with no information about when the case will come to court and, therefore, offered no end in sight. In the words of Andrew's family and friends, who took their concerns to the Greek embassy on Saturday, enough is enough.
	This Adjournment debate therefore comes at a crucial time and offers an opportunity for me to represent my constituent and raise these very serious issues directly with the Minister.
	I have two main concerns about Andrew's detention to raise this evening: first, the refusal of the Greek authorities to grant Andrew bail; and secondly, the number of inconsistencies and anomalies in the case file, which Andrew's legal team have obtained. When taken together, those suggest that, at best, there has been a serious abuse of process in the gathering of evidence and the production of written statements, and at worst that evidence has been manipulated and sometimes fabricated to incriminate Andrew falsely.
	More to the point, even though those concerns have been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Greek authorities, they have been dismissed out of hand, which I believe raises real doubts about whether Andrew can expect to receive a fair trial. If the Greek authorities are unwilling or unable credibly to investigate those issues, it is incumbent on the British Government to raise them directly with the Greek Government.
	At the outset, however, it might be useful briefly to set out the background to the case. In the early hours of Friday 20 July 2007, Jonathan Hiles, a young man from Wales, on the eve of his 19th birthday, was punched and fell from a stage at the Rescue nightclub on the island of Zakynthos. A few days later, he tragically died in hospital in Athens. Almost a year later, on 26 June 2008, my constituent, Andrew Symeou, was arrested under the European arrest warrant and charged with the manslaughter of Jonathan Hiles.
	More than a year later, on 23 July 2009, Andrew was extradited to Greece, where he has been detained since. Until November, he was detained in a juvenile prison in Avlona. Since then, he has been held at the notorious maximum security Korydallos prison. Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations have repeatedly raised serious concerns about conditions in Korydallos, which they believe amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, including poor hygiene in cells, lack of access to association, fresh air, exercise facilities and prompt medical treatment.
	Andrew, a student at Bournemouth university, with a bright future, no history whatever of law-breaking and a string of impeccable testimonials and character references from his teachers, is now forced to share a cell with convicted murderers, rapists and drug smugglers. He has twice been denied bail, even though he has, at every stage of the investigation, fully co-operated with the police, and even though his uncle, who has a property in Athens, has offered his home as a fixed address where Andrew could reside.
	In the first instance, Andrew was denied bail on the ground that he is a foreign national-he was therefore perceived to be a flight risk. The European convention on human rights, to which Greece is a signatory, makes clear that discrimination on the basis of national origin is unlawful. An appeal was lodged against the refusal of bail. For months, neither my constituent nor his legal team, never mind British officials in Greece, who inquired about the status of the application on a number of occasions, were given any information about when the appeal was likely to be heard. In fact, the appeal was denied before my constituent or his legal team were actually informed that an appeal was taking place-before Andrew's lawyer could make any oral arguments to the judge, and before Andrew was given the right to defend himself or argue his case.
	Article 6 of the ECHR provides defendants with the right to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their choosing. When Andrew was finally informed that his application for bail had been refused, he was informed only in Greek. He was given a document written in Greek and told by one of the prison guards to sign it, even though he could not read it. When he initially refused, he was told he had no choice. When Andrew requested that the document be sent to his lawyer, the guard refused. When Andrew asked to speak to his parents, the guard said no. Under the European convention on human rights, detainees have an unambiguous and unqualified legal right to receive any documentation pertaining to their case in a language they understand. But Andrew was not afforded this right.
	Andrew's legal team in the UK are currently preparing an application to the European Court of Human Rights on these grounds. But we know that applications of this kind can take months, if not years, to be processed. If the Greek authorities will not give Andrew a fair hearing, who will ensure that his rights are protected? Surely the British Government have a duty to step in when the rights of their citizens are threatened. On that precise point. I ask the Minister to make representations to the Greek authorities requesting that a date is set for Andrew's trial promptly and that the decision not to grant him bail pending trial is reconsidered and that he granted it.
	There are, in addition, serious inconsistencies in the case file, which my constituent's legal team has obtained, and which it believes are suggestive of a serious abuse of process. The case file that allegedly implicates Andrew consists of witness statements given by seven individuals. Two of these statements were given by friends of Andrew on 24 July. They were held at the police station for more than eight hours, deprived of food and water, beaten-allegedly-and threatened by police officers until they gave false statements implicating Andrew. This was reported to the British embassy in Greece at the time, although, as I understand it, the case was never pursued. The friends have, in addition, subsequently returned to Greece in June 2009 and testified, under oath, that the statements they gave were false and only obtained under duress. Both young men have made it clear that they did not see who punched Jonathan Hiles.
	More worrying, though, is that even though the public prosecutor is aware of the allegations, she has so far refused to acknowledge that anything of the sort could possibly have ever happened. In her proposal to the judicial counsel of Zante, without even bothering to have investigated the allegations, which all of us would agree are serious in their own right and clearly relevant to the case against Andrew, she dismisses the allegations out of hand as "trite" and claims that
	"nothing of the kind had occurred."
	How can she assert with such confidence and certainty that nothing of the kind occurred, if the allegations have never been investigated? If this is the cavalier attitude to justice that Andrew can anticipate when the case comes to court, how can he expect to receive a fair trial?
	The other five witness statements in the case file were given by friends of Jonathan Hiles. They too suggest an abuse of process in the gathering of evidence and the production of written statements. These five statements, which were taken at different times on different days, are word-for-word identical-not just similar, not just alike, but word-for-word identical. How likely is it that five witnesses being interviewed at different times on different days would provide officers with statements that are word-for-word identical?
	When the details are probed further, even more discrepancies come to light. On all of the statements that were taken, the name of the officer is recorded. When the five statements are put together, they show that Zante police officers were, somehow, holding interviews with different individual witnesses at the very same time. That is not simply improbable, unlikely or suspicious: it is a physical impossibility. Those officers could not have been in different places at the same time. What gives me greater cause for concern is the fact that the statements bear no resemblance to statements that were subsequently given to South Wales police as part of a coroner's inquiry into Jonathan's death. Four of the five remaining witnesses have categorically stated that they did not see who punched Jonathan, but in their statements to police in Zante each one of the witnesses allegedly says, in reference to Andrew:
	"I identified with complete certainty and I am absolutely sure that the individual shown...is the perpetrator".
	By contrast, in their statements to South Wales police, the same witnesses deny having ever seen who punched Jonathan. One witness said:
	"I did not recognise anybody on these photos...as I said I didn't see the incident".
	The only witness who did say that he saw Jonathan being punched described the perpetrator as being over six feet tall and blond. Neither of those descriptions bears any resemblance whatever to Andrew. So, of the seven witness statements that allegedly implicate him, two have since been withdrawn, four are contradicted by statements made in the UK in which the same witnesses categorically state that they did not see who punched Jonathan, and one-the only witness statement in which a perpetrator is actually identified-describes an attacker who bears no resemblance to Andrew.
	I understand that the British Government have no direct jurisdiction over the judicial affairs of another country, but when the rights of one of our citizens are threatened, the Government have a duty to step in. It is no consolation to tell my constituent that all this will come to light in any subsequent trial. If the Greek authorities refuse to acknowledge, let alone investigate, any wrongdoing by the police, even though there is considerable evidence to suggest there has been some, if they abuse Andrew's rights by denying him legal advice and refusing him bail and if they refuse to question him or to afford him the right to defend himself against the allegations, why should he believe that he will receive a fair trial? All that he and his family have ever sought is a fair hearing. Andrew has never sought to avoid the opportunity to clear his name; nor has he tried to avoid justice. He has made it clear on countless occasions that he is willing to co-operate with the police. Indeed, his legal team have contacted Scotland Yard and South Wales police and urged them to investigate. Those are not the actions of someone who is trying to avoid justice.
	Surely, wherever they are in the world, any British citizen who is pursuing justices should be able to rely on their Government to uphold their most basic rights. In this case, the potential for suffering is obvious and the need for justice is urgent. In the absence of any legal impediment that prevents them from doing so, surely the British Government have an obligation to take up Andrew's case-and Jonathan's case-with the Greek authorities.
	Today, we reflect not only on the detention of Andrew Symeou, but on the tragic and untimely death of Jonathan Hiles and the suffering that it has brought to his family and friends. Jonathan cannot face a jury; his life was cut short in an act of mindless and senseless violence, but his memory deserves justice, as do his friends and family. They deserve better than this shoddy investigation that is so obviously marred by inconsistencies and anomalies. Another injustice will bring them no comfort. It is in the interest of everyone-Andrew, the family and friends of Jonathan Hiles and the Greek judicial system itself-for this case to be fully and openly investigated, but that will not be possible unless and until the British Government make representations in the clearest possible terms to the Greek authorities to prevent a miscarriage of justice. One young man has lost his life, and I urge the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that we do not ruin the life of another.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Watts.)

Chris Bryant: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), not only for securing this debate at a timely point, as she said, but for pursuing this case and many others affecting her constituents with determination, clear-sightedness and, as we have heard this evening, forensic determination. I know that she is a diligent constituency MP, and I pay tribute to her for that. One issue that she has taken particularly seriously is Cyprus, so it is perhaps ironic that we are talking now about a case in Greece.
	As my right hon. Friend did, I pass on my condolences to the family of Jonathan Hiles. As she said, it is particularly difficult for someone to lose a young son but even more difficult to do so in a foreign clime where they do not understand the criminal justice system or speak the language. That means that it is very difficult for the family to arrange things conveniently and easily. She is absolutely right that the pursuit of not any old justice but a fair trial and justice is essential for the family of Jonathan Hiles, and that is obviously the outcome that we want.
	I wish also to pass on my sympathy to the family of Andrew Symeou, because just as it has been horrendously difficult for Jonathan Hiles's family, so this must have been a very difficult time for the Symeou family. It is not for me to judge the rights and wrongs of the case, but whenever a British citizen is caught up in the criminal justice system in another country it is phenomenally difficult for their family. There are costs involved in travelling to support somebody and there are worries about having to deal with a legal system in a foreign language and a system built on very different premises from our own. Notwithstanding the fact that Greece is another member state of the EU, the criminal justice and prison system are clearly different from ours.
	I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in Greece, who often deal with very complicated issues surrounding criminal justice and British citizens abroad. I am keen to ensure that they have the skills and support they need to support British citizens when they are abroad.
	My right hon. Friend knows that there are certain things that we can do. We can definitely provide welfare and support for a British citizen abroad. That is the single most important thing we can do, and we try to do it as diligently and swiftly as we possibly can. We can also, of course, take up justified complaints about the treatment of British citizens when it is not in line with international standards or when there has been a clear case of discrimination against the person involved. I hear her points about human rights and whether people are treated equally everywhere in the EU, which are very important.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend and Andrew's family will understand that there are also some things that we cannot do. I know that she was not asking me to, but we cannot seek preferential treatment for a British citizen compared with the treatment that a Greek citizen would receive. We cannot get someone out of prison just because they are a British citizen, and we cannot interfere in the judicial process. That is key, because if we think about it the other way around, how would people in Britain feel if a Greek Minister rang me up and asked me to interfere in a court in the Rhondda, in Manchester or wherever, to try to get somebody released on bail or allowed to go back home pending trial? I know exactly what the courts would say in this country: "You have absolutely no power, because the separation of power between the courts and Parliament is a fundamental premise of how we do business." From the forensic work and the compelling arguments she has presented, I know that my right hon. Friend understands that difficult element of the process. This is a particularly difficult case, because Mr. Symeou might well be held, pending trial, for up to 18 months, which is a very long time. I understand that. We would always much prefer to see swifter justice, because slow justice is no justice.
	Bail is a matter entirely for the Greek legal authorities-not the political authorities-just as would be the case in Britain. I understand that a further appeal will be held before judges next week or the week after, and I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend again afterwards. I know that the family have concerns about a series of inconsistencies in how the case has been presented, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon, and I would expect those to be brought before the court by Mr. Symeou's legal team, because in the end only the court can make a decision.
	I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that we have continued to monitor Mr. Symeou's case since his extradition to Greece last July, and consular staff in Zakynthos, Athens and London have provided consular assistance to Mr. Symeou and his family, and I shall ensure that they continue to do so. We have visited him twice, once in Avlona prison and more recently in Korydallos prison, and Mr. and Mrs. Symeou have attended meetings at the British embassy in Athens to discuss their son's case with consular staff. Although there are many things that we cannot do, there are things that we will continue to do.
	On 25 November, our ambassador in Athens met the new Greek Justice Minister and took the opportunity to raise with him a number of consular cases, including that of Andrew Symeou. The Greek Minister advised him that the case was progressing through the Greek judicial system in the usual way, although I understand that that is not much consolation to anyone, because the usual way is a rather slow way. However, in conversations with my Greek counterparts, I am more than happy to make the same case as the ambassador made.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will be assured that we will continue to provide Mr. Symeou and his family with all the appropriate consular assistance while he remains in Greece, and I very much hope that she will keep in touch with me.

Joan Ryan: I thank the Minister for offering a further meeting after the legal proceedings, but may Mr. and Mrs. Symeou be present at that meeting? They would appreciate the opportunity to talk directly to the Minister and me rather than having to use me as a go-between.

Chris Bryant: I should have made that clear. I had intended it to be a meeting not only with my right hon. Friend, but with the family. I am more than happy to do that. I understand their difficult circumstances. This Government stand ready to provide whatever reassurance and support is possible, so I am more than happy to give that assurance.
	I am not sure that I can say much more at this point, but as I said I am more than happy to meet the family and my right hon. Friend, to whom I pay tribute.

Joan Ryan: I asked whether the Minister could, as the Minister for Europe, make further representations to the Greek Justice Minister and any other member of the Greek Government whom he thinks might have, or whom we can identify as having, an important role in the matter. I am horrified when we talk about the "usual way". I cannot believe that the Greek Government would want it to be said that the usual way for justice to progress in Greece is for there to be total injustice.

Chris Bryant: It is not for me to judge whether there is justice or injustice. In the end, we are talking about a legal proceeding and that question is for the court. I am visiting Turkey this weekend and expect my Greek counterpart, Mr. Droutsas, to be at one of the events that I am attending on Saturday. I am more than happy to assure my right hon. Friend that I shall raise the case with him.
	Unless my right hon. Friend wants to intervene on me again, let me pay tribute to her for the way in which she has devoted herself to this constituency case. As I have said, I am more than happy to meet her and the family, and to raise the case with my Greek counterpart.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.